CORY COLLUSION INQUIRY

Resolved,
	"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Cory Collusion Inquiry Reports on Patrick Finucane, Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Civil Service

Tim Boswell: What recent discussions he has held with civil service unions about securing cost savings in the public service.

Gordon Brown: Ministers have met all the relevant trade unions. Yesterday I met the TUC General Council, when I explained the necessity for the 54,000 job reductions. I can now give more details of the specifics at the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.
	Of the 14,000 job reductions by 2007–08, 8,000 will be made by the Inland Revenue, 3,000 by HM Customs and Excise and 3,000 will result directly from the merger.
	Following the Lyons review, of the 27,000 public sector jobs to be moved out of London and the south-east, 7,000 will not be replaced. Those changes make possible the release of more resources to the front line to benefit pupils, parents, patients and the general public.

Tim Boswell: Although I share the Chancellor's view about the importance of efficiency, does not he feel, on reflection, that the matter could have been handled better, given the TUC's concerns about the likely collapse of morale and the possibility of knock-on failures in delivering front-line services? Why does the Chancellor go around like some sort of ruthless Victorian landlord, making eye-catching statements, apparently in an effort to distract the nation from failing public finances?

Gordon Brown: All the consultative procedures involved in the 54,000 reductions are being gone through, and that will continue. I do not believe that the general public or trade unionists in the civil service will listen keenly to the hon. Gentleman, whose party proposes real-terms reductions in every Department apart from Health and Education. That means that thousands of jobs in front-line services would go.

Brian H Donohoe: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that none of the job losses will be in law and order, the defence industry or economic development?

Gordon Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that we do not propose real-terms reductions in the budgets for the Home Office or for defence, especially given the troubled, difficult and insecure nature of the times. Conservative Members may wish to reflect on the fact that cutting the defence budget and the Home Office budget at this time would put our armed forces, security services and police at risk. We will not cut the science or skills budgets, either.

Oliver Letwin: I am genuinely puzzled about the civil service plan—and I suspect that that may apply to the Chancellor, too. Between 1997 and 1999, he reduced numbers in the civil service by 15,000. Between 1999 and 2005, he increased them by 52,000. Now he says that he will reduce numbers again by some number—today we heard the figure of 54,000—in the next four years. However, at the same time he is hiring an extra 500 civil servants a week. What, in his view, is the right number of civil servants? What does the stop-go policy aim to achieve?

Gordon Brown: The last time the right hon. Gentleman was puzzled, he disappeared for approximately three weeks before returning to his constituency wearing a toga. He has not disappeared on this occasion, but perhaps his hon. Friends would wish him to disappear after his huge mistakes in his proposed Budget.
	Civil service numbers will be fewer in 2007–08 than in 1997.

Oliver Letwin: By how much?

Gordon Brown: The latest figures show that they will be at least 40,000 fewer.

Oliver Letwin: In that case, why is the Chancellor currently hiring about 500 civil servants a week?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. We have just announced 54,000 job reductions. They start almost immediately. Let me alert the shadow Chancellor to the table for the costs of civil servants and of administration. In the Conservative years, especially when he was an economic adviser to the Government, the costs of administration as a proportion of total managed expenditure rose to 5.7 per cent. Under this Government, they have fallen below 5 per cent. to 4.7 per cent. and 4.4 per cent., and they will fall to 3.7 per cent. by 2007–08. The right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the country, because his Government ran up enormous waste, especially the £2.5 billion cost of the poll tax.

Tom Clarke: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments, does he agree that efficiency savings are also important to the users of services? Does he also agree that, if it is possible to devolve decisions locally, we get the benefit of local knowledge, local awareness of problems and a general improvement of the service, which Labour Members clearly support?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Public services must and will be run efficiently as a result of the changes that we are making. The 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings that will happen every year, the reduction in the numbers of civil servants and the freezing of the cash budgets for administration will allow more resources to go to the front line. The dividing line between us and our opponents is that we want the resources to go to the front line and they want to cut public spending even in defence, law and order, science and skills after all the administrative savings are made.

Vincent Cable: Is the Chancellor aware of last week's Populus public opinion survey, which suggested that 57 per cent. of the public do not believe that there is any prospect of significantly reduced waste or increased civil service efficiency under this Government or under the Conservatives? How does he think that this mood of deep public cynicism will be affected by the Treasury's own response to the Lyons report, in which Sir Michael says that the
	"Treasury has been considering the opportunities for relocation as part of a rationalisation of support services"—
	and that it has come up with 18 jobs to be relocated to the provinces out of an establishment of 1,152? Is that not a splendid example of doing not as we do, but as we say?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman really should do his homework. The Treasury is responsible for the Inland Revenue and for Customs and Excise and, as far as I remember, a major part of the job relocation will take place within those two sectors. So, far from making a lesser contribution to the relocation of civil servants, the Treasury is making a greater one. The hon. Gentleman should think again before he puts a question in the way that he has done. The 101 spending commitments of the Liberal party will not convince people that the Liberals could make better use of public money than anyone else. He should take seriously the advice of his party chairman, who, after all, used to be the shadow spokesman on economic affairs, who told the party that it would not be treated seriously if it made public spending commitment after public spending commitment without having the means to pay for them.

International Finance Facility

Russell Brown: What assessment he has made of how an international finance facility would contribute to tackling poverty in developing countries.

Mark Hendrick: How an international finance facility would contribute to tackling poverty in developing countries.

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer question 2 together with question 5.
	Our proposal for an international finance facility would deliver the additional $50 billion a year needed to meet the millennium development goals. The proposal will be discussed in detail next week during the 8 April ministerial forum on finance for development in Paris, which I will co-chair with the new French Finance Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the Chancellor will be linking this question with question 4, not question 5.

Russell Brown: It is not like the Chancellor to get his figures wrong in any shape or form. Like him, I am aware that the global health fund for poor countries has now received pledges to the value of $5 billion. That will assist poor countries to stem the spread of HIV and AIDS and to deal with the many millions of deaths from tuberculosis and malaria. Will he seize the opportunity, when he is in Paris next week, and at his forthcoming meeting in Washington, further to enhance and enlarge the fund?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for his initial remarks and for his general point. In my defence, the figure that I got wrong did not affect money.
	On the international finance facility, I can tell my hon. Friend that 50 countries will be represented at our conference in Paris next week. The three key areas in which we can make progress are debt relief, health—as he mentioned—and education. It is generally recognised that at least $10 billion a year is needed if we are to get every child into primary school in the countries in which primary education is not universally available. It is also recognised that, to tackle AIDS, TB and malaria, we would need an additional $20 billion a year. We also need to meet our commitments on debt relief. Therefore, the proposal for the international finance facility, which, I am grateful to say, commands the support of all parties in this House, is one that we shall pursue diligently with all our neighbouring countries. When we meet at the IMF and World Bank meetings later this month, I hope to gain support from countries outside Europe as well.

Mark Hendrick: Each year, 7 million people die from avoidable diseases, and 115 million children do not get an education. More than 1 billion people live on less than a dollar a day. Given that we are unlikely to meet the millennium development targets for 2015, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how we will help those who most need it?

Gordon Brown: I know that when my hon. Friend was in the European Parliament, before he came here, he took a great interest in these matters. His figure of 7 million is absolutely right. Two million people a year die from tuberculosis, which, as everyone knows, is a preventable and avoidable disease if the proper inoculations and treatment are available. Two million die from malaria each year, and that, too, would be avoidable through a very small investment in mosquito nets, for example. Many people also die because anti-retroviral drugs are not available to deal with HIV/AIDS. I believe that we can make substantial progress between now and 2015. Aid is increasing, but it must be increased at a higher level, and it must be seen as investment in the future. That is why our proposal for the international finance facility, which makes it a condition of more aid that changes take place in the developing countries, but which is prepared through borrowing on international capital markets to raise the amount of development money available, is right. If we implemented it during the next period, we could meet the millennium development targets.

Martin Smyth: One welcomes anything to help developing countries, but are we not in danger of setting targets that we cannot reach? The Chancellor will be aware that some people are concerned that the United Kingdom is among those countries that have not yet reached the 0.7 per cent. target for development aid. When is that likely to be achieved?

Gordon Brown: The development aid budget is increasing from 0.26 per cent. of GDP, which is the figure that we inherited in 1997, to 0.4 per cent. That is a big increase. If, however, we are to meet the millennium development targets, it will have to be through a co-ordinated effort by all the countries together. For us alone to raise our amounts of money would provide only several hundred million dollars extra, whereas to reach the additional $50 billion that we are talking about demands a co-ordinated effort. That is why we believe that for countries to come together and front-load development aid through an international borrowing facility is the best way forward. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman looks at the detail of our proposals—I know that he takes an interest in these matters—he will think that the right way forward, if we are going to make the speed of progress that is necessary, is to persuade other countries to join us in the proposed international finance facility.

Richard Ottaway: Although we can all agree with and congratulate the Chancellor on his efforts to reduce international debt, does he agree that progress is slow? Can he confirm that only eight of the 36 countries expected to qualify for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative had reached their completion point by last September? Under the circumstances, will he renew his efforts and try harder to achieve some results, rather than just talking about them?

Gordon Brown: That is grossly unfair. Of course we want to move faster, but the fact is that when we came into government in 1997, not one country—not one—was receiving debt relief under the HIPC initiative. There are now 27 countries receiving debt relief. Some are at completion point, and some—this will be covered by the next question—are just going through the process. Those countries got debt relief only because of the changes made in the process after 1997. I have always congratulated the previous Government on being involved in the first stage of HIPC, but the truth is that there are 27 countries getting debt relief now only because of the second stage of the process. The reason that there are not 37, as originally planned, is that seven of those countries, if I remember rightly, are in conflict, and three have governance issues. We should not give debt relief to a country where there is corruption until that has been sorted out, and the hon. Gentleman would not suggest otherwise.
	The hon. Gentleman should take a more optimistic view both of the process and of what has been achieved by co-operative effort. He should ask his Front-Bench colleagues to reconsider their policy, which is to cut international development aid when it is needed most.

Chris Bryant: The Chancellor will know that only 38 per cent. of European Union aid goes to the poorest countries in the world, with much of it going to other countries for all sorts of historical reasons. If we are to meet our millennium goals, will we not need to persuade more of our European comrades that they must direct aid to the poorest countries in the world?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he takes a keen interest in these European matters. It is essential that there is reform of the European overseas aid budget. We have been pressing for that for some time, and Finance Ministers in Europe are looking at the matter. It must be in everybody's interest that money goes to the poorest countries and the poorest people. I had hoped that we could get common ground in the House on the increase in the international development aid budget so that we could take our case to Europe and to the rest of the international institutions. Indeed, the shadow International Development Secretary said:
	"If we are to be taken seriously as a party of government . . . there has to be a public spending commitment".
	Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will reflect on his party's policy to cut international aid.

Howard Flight: First, may I stress our support for the Chancellor's continuation of the last Conservative Government's debt relief initiatives?
	I am sure that the Chancellor will agree with me on the importance to developing countries of securing the best possible terms in what are often difficult and rule-based international trade negotiations, and will bear in mind that the Geneva centre assists only in the event of trade disputes. Why, therefore, has he not supported our proposals for an advocacy fund to finance professional advisers of its choosing to help developing economies to secure better trade terms?

Gordon Brown: The issue is how that can be promoted—through a new fund or through existing institutions. I have already told the Leader of the Opposition that we are promoting it through existing institutions. I think it is difficult for the shadow Chief Secretary to propose an advocacy fund now. Until a few months ago, the Conservatives supported an increase in the international development budget, which would have financed either an advocacy fund or new measures to help with advocacy. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to suggest more spending now, when his party is committed to less spending.
	The hon. Gentleman has just written to his friends in the City, stating explicitly—thus contradicting the shadow Chancellor, who is trying to say that there will be no defence, law and order or international development cuts, of necessity—
	"It calls for real reductions in areas other than Health, Education, Pensions and Welfare over the next five years".
	When the hon. Gentleman next asks me a question, will he correct the position of the party that now wants to cut overseas development?

Debt Relief

Julia Drown: What steps for further debt relief he will be pressing for at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Gordon Brown: Twenty-seven countries have already received debt relief under the highly indebted poor countries initiative, worth over $70 billion. In recent months, two more countries, Nicaragua and Guyana, have reached completion point, and more are expected to complete the process in the coming months. We have persuaded other donors to provide top-up assistance for Niger, and at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank I proposed that we extend it to Ethiopia and other countries so that they do not exit the HIPC initiative with unsustainable debt levels.

Julia Drown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response, but does he agree that if sustainable debt relief is to be provided for the poorest countries, the attitude and ability of the IMF's new managing director will be important? My right hon. Friend will know of fears that the managing director will be appointed through horsetrading, behind closed doors. Does he agree that a key appointment of this kind should be made in a fair and transparent way, and that applicants from developing countries should be encouraged?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, I have taken some interest in the appointment of the managing director, purely in my capacity as chairman of the advisory committee—the International Monetary Fund Committee. She is absolutely right. After the appointment of the last managing director, who has resigned to become President of Germany, it was agreed that a number of procedures would be followed that would make for a more transparent process.
	In my capacity as chairman of the IMFC, I am contacting all the countries and regions affected by this decision. We are sounding them out and asking them how they think we should proceed. I stress, however, that under the IMF's constitution the decision is made not by Finance Ministers but by the executive board of the IMF, which will itself decide when to trigger the process. We are trying, and will continue to try, to ensure that it involves more transparency.

Tony Baldry: Those of us who are fortunate enough to visit countries that have benefited from debt relief can see the transformation that it is already bringing about. However, we must find ways of communicating better to colleagues in Congress and other Parliaments in Europe our enthusiasm for these initiatives, and initiatives such as the international finance facility, otherwise there is a danger that we will merely talk and agree among ourselves. Does the Chancellor agree that we must somehow work out, as a Parliament, how to enlist the support of other parliamentarians throughout the world?

Gordon Brown: I know that, as Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Gentleman has taken a huge interest in these matters, and has been responsible for the sending of a message around the world about the importance attributed by all of us in this country—Churches and non-governmental organisations as well as politicians in all parts of the House—to getting debt relief to work properly, and ensuring that international aid is well spent. I hope he will agree that organising a conference in Paris next week, to which 73 countries have been invited—we think that 50 will attend—is a step forward. I have spoken to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which some of us are members, about how it might convey the message to parliamentarians throughout the world. I shall be happy to meet members of the International Development Committee, or the hon. Gentleman personally, to discuss how we can make further progress. Let me again applaud the Committee's efforts to get the message across.

Harry Barnes: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question that he himself asked at a conference on 16 February in talking about the Tobin tax and special drawing rights, which relate to debt issues? He asked whether there was sufficient will in the richest countries to agree to these profound changes. Presumably there is sufficient will in this country. What responses do we get from elsewhere?

Gordon Brown: I raised the Tobin tax and special drawing rights—the proposal of George Soros—and asked whether other mechanisms such as an arms tax or energy tax might make it possible to increase the amount of development aid. I concluded at the conference that the proposal with the best chance of success was our proposal for an international finance facility.
	In each case, as my hon. Friend says, it depends on political will. For the first time in 20 years, international aid is rising rather than falling; that has been as a result of pressures from all over the world. Debt relief is now happening and there is a recognition that we have a duty and a responsibility to help with the health and education problems of the poorest countries. Progress is being made but, as a result of the Monterrey conference and the breakdown at Cancun on trade, people will be looking for another signal from the richest countries that they are prepared to do more. He is right that that is the signal that the conference next week—and other meetings, such as those of the IMF—must now give.

Nicholas Winterton: I was immensely encouraged a few moments ago when the Chancellor mentioned the role that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might play in this area. The chairman of the UK branch, myself and our secretaries met the Chancellor recently. How does he believe that that organisation, representing more than 50 countries—some very wealthy, some very deprived—can help to contribute to a reduction in world poverty and to debt relief?

Gordon Brown: I applaud the work of the hon. Gentleman with the CPA, which involves 50 countries. Of the 110 million children who are not going to school every day, more than 70 million are in Commonwealth countries. Therefore, we have a special responsibility to enhance resources for education and to deal with the problems that prevent money from being spent on education, health and economic development. Following the Commonwealth Finance Ministers conference—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has taken a keen interest in the Commonwealth Finance Ministers group—we can do more to get our message across to parliamentarians in the Commonwealth. I should like to work with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to do so. It is also true that we formed the Commonwealth education fund to celebrate the Queen's jubilee, through which money is going to education as a result of Government and private sector sponsorship under the chairmanship of the former Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Eddie George. There are many things that we can do and we are ready to work with the hon. Gentleman to achieve those goals.

New Deal for Skills

Barry Gardiner: Pursuant to his announcement in the Budget on the extension of the new deal for skills, if he will assess the benefits of developing short-term loans for those on low incomes seeking to move into better jobs.

John Healey: Alongside schemes such as our employer training pilots, adult learning grants, the new deal programmes and free training to gain a first level 2 qualification, the Government already operate a career development loan. We are looking at ways in which this can be developed through a new deal for skills so that we can help people into work and then get on in work.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend appreciates that the transition from waged to salaried employment can mean that people have a three-week gap in their income. Does he accept that this disincentive to move into a better job also has a detrimental impact in ossifying the lower end of the labour market? Will he look at making specific grants available—as they are for people who go into work—to people going from waged jobs into salaried appointments?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and I know how consistent my hon. Friend is in pursuing this point. He will know that existing survey data do not tell us conclusively that there is a disincentive. He will know also that more families and working households are benefiting from in-work support through the working families tax credit and the child tax credit. These are improving the incomes of low and moderate earners and increasing their ability to save and to cope with just the sort of transition about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister share my surprise that economic activity is at its current levels, compared with 1997? I have an interest to declare, because my electorate made me economically inactive in 1997. Could that level be connected with the fact that roughly 1 million people are claiming some form of sickness or incapacity benefit because they are unfit for work? What will this new scheme do to help those people back into work?

John Healey: No, I do not agree. The fact is that more people are employed than ever before. Unemployment has not been at these levels since the 1970s, and in a modern society, job security and career prospects for individuals increasingly depend on their having the skills that employers need. We simply will not scrap the new deal, which has helped more than 1 million people into work. We will build on its success, and offer the new deal for work and skills in the future. This is precisely the time to be investing in the skills base for the future. It is precisely the wrong time, for the future economic strength and prosperity of this country, to cut apprenticeships, cut university places, cut further education courses and cut workplace training, which is precisely what the shadow Chancellor plans to do in his public spending plans.

Anne Begg: The Government have been extremely successful in getting people off unemployment benefit and incapacity benefit and into work, very often into entry-level jobs. If there is to be an answer to the question that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asked, we have to make sure that those in entry-level jobs move up the jobs ladder so that those who are still on benefits can move into work and take advantage of the new deals. Will the Government put the same amount of energy into ensuring that people move up the jobs ladder into better jobs, which will then create entry-level jobs for those who are still out of work, who can fill the gaps? That is the only way in which we can get more people, including those who are more difficult to place, into work.

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our concern as regards the new deal for work and skills is precisely that which she raises. We are concerned about the 7 million adults in this country who do not have a level 2 qualification. We are concerned to help those who are unemployed into work and then to help them to get on in work. We are concerned to help those who are employed to get advice on the skills and training that might be available to them, to improve their career prospects. That is precisely the sort of challenge that my hon. Friend sets us. She will know from the unemployment rates in her area in Aberdeen that, as a result of the economic measures that have been put in place since 1997, we are now closer than we have been for a generation to full employment in this country.

Andrew Love: I strongly welcome the new deal for skills, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary's statement about the need for training, not only for the benefit of the economy but for improved productivity. Does he agree that to achieve that, we need a greater commitment from employers to the upskilling of their work force?

John Healey: Employers have a critical role to play, and it is the Government's role to try to provide the support and incentives that will help them. I mentioned the employer training pilots that we have rolled out this year to more than a third of England. The first-year evaluation of those shows that 70 per cent. of the firms involved have fewer than 50 employees—precisely the sort of employer that it has proved most difficult to help in the past. Some 40 per cent. of those employers have never had any contact before with a Government agency. Most importantly, three quarters of the learners now taking up training opportunities under the employer training pilots left school at or before the age of 16. That is part of the way ahead, and it is part of the future new deal for work and skills.

Child Care

Oona King: How much extra money he is making available for child care in the next spending review period.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government announced the 2004 spending review settlement for the Sure Start unit, which includes child care, in the Budget on 17 March. It allocated an additional £669 million in funding by 2007–08, compared with 2004–05. That is spending that the Opposition will cut.

Oona King: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I tell her, the Chancellor and the rest of the Treasury team that at a recent big conversation event on child care that I held in my constituency, the top priority that emerged was the need to encourage employers to provide more flexibility and family-friendly working? I know that the House of Commons will be unable to do that until the 23rd century or so, but if we could achieve it for the rest of the country in the next spending review, that would be fantastic. Will she also consider the fact that families eligible for tax credits lose eligibility for free school meals, which is a big symbolic problem for many in my constituency?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the whole House will agree that more needs to be done to make sure that child care places are available through nursery education providers and employers. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have announced the introduction from 2005 of a £50 a week voucher, which employers will be able to give to their employees, and a number of employers engaging in the debate acknowledge that that will help them with training and retention. I encourage all Members to publicise the development to their employers and in their constituencies.
	My hon. Friend will also be interested to know that child care through tax credits is now worth £700 million a year. The idea of extending eligibility through registration schemes, so that more child care can be paid for through tax credits, is being developed by right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. We will discuss my hon. Friend's point about free school meals with the Secretary of State.

George Osborne: The availability of affordable, high-quality child care is very important, not least to working mothers trying to balance the many pressures in their lives. Has the Paymaster General read the National Audit Office report that was published in February, which pointed out that half those mothers said that their ideal type of child care was a playgroup or a pre-school? Will she explain why, despite all the extra money that she has just talked about, the number of playgroup and pre-school places has fallen by 22 per cent. since Labour took office?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of cheek raising questions about child care at the Dispatch Box, given that the Conservatives propose to spend less on it. I remind him that more than 920,000 new places have been created since 1997 as a direct result of this Government's policy, and there will be a further 300,000 places and 1,700 children's centres by 2008. He may be aware of the announcement by the Minister for Children that the Government have introduced free part-time early-years education for every three-year-old, six months in advance of our target. All those things have been achieved through this Government's policies, which Conservative Members tried to frustrate at every opportunity.

Sally Keeble: I assure my right hon. Friend of the enormous support in my constituency for the progress that this Government have made in financing child care. Does she recognise, however, that more money is needed for the children's fund, which ran into difficulties this year, and that it is extremely important that funding be provided for contact centres? Will she consider providing extra funds for centres such as that at Headlands primary school in my constituency, where people can get before-school, after-school, pre-school and holiday care? People sign up for those centres when they are thinking of having a family. Women need such secure, high-quality child care schemes if they are to have real choices in life.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her pursuit of the development of child care policies during her time in the House. I can reassure her in that, as I said, 1,700 children's centres are planned for 2008. In partnership with the extended schools initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is developing, each centre will be a single place for five key services: early-years education, child care, health, family support and help into employment for parents. The intention is to provide a comprehensive service, not only developing the child's educational needs, but ensuring that parents are able to develop their potential, particularly to return to work.

Exports

Nigel Beard: What assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom exporters of the value of the pound against the dollar and levels of growth in the eurozone.

Ruth Kelly: Export growth is expected to pick up significantly throughout 2004 and 2005. The lagged effects of sterling's weakening against the euro since 2002 and the expected pick up in euro area GDP growth are likely to boost UK exports to EU countries over the period ahead. UK exports are also being boosted by strong demand from the United States, albeit dampened by the recent weakness of the dollar.

Nigel Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that it is desirable for the UK to reduce its persistent deficit in traded goods? Does she view increased exports to China, India and south-east Asia as a means of augmenting our capacity to do so?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to point to the recent strong and rapid growth in far eastern countries, but the primary effect on export growth in the coming years is likely to be as a result of strengthening growth in the euro area and strong demand from the US economy. If he consults the Red Book, he will see that the Treasury has predicted that exports will pick up and grow from 5.25 to 5.5 per cent. this year to 6.75 to 7.25 per cent. next year.

Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor have an exchange rate policy of his own, or is he happy for it to be decided by the Monetary Policy Committee?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman should know that the best way to deliver a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term is to have a strong macro-economy, which is exactly what the Government have delivered.

Stephen McCabe: What would be the effect on exporters of any recession engineered by reckless public spending cuts? Is that not exactly what the west midlands experienced in the early '80s?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend might also like to consider what happened during the recession in the early 1990s. Clearly, the way to deliver a stable exchange rate is to deliver the lowest interest rates for 50 years, the lowest sustained level of inflation for 40 years and the highest level of employment that this country has seen since the 1970s.

Mortgage Regulation

David Kidney: What arrangements he has made for the transfer of responsibility for the regulation of mortgages from the Mortgage Code Compliance Board to the Financial Services Authority.

Ruth Kelly: The Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Mortgage Code Compliance Board have worked closely together to achieve a seamless transition from the mortgage industry's voluntary arrangements to the new statutory regime.

David Kidney: While others argued about whether and how there should be statutory regulation of mortgages, the industry got on with establishing voluntary regulation through the Mortgage Code Compliance Board, which had the good sense to locate its offices in Stafford. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is to the board's great credit that, in just three years, it has brought 67,000 mortgage professionals up to fully qualified status? Does she agree, as it prepares to pass the baton to the Financial Services Authority later this year, that the FSA's job will have been made so much easier as a result of the board's great work?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As he knows, FSA mortgage regulation will benefit millions of consumers by ensuring that they receive clear and comparable information and appropriate advice about mortgages. He points to the record of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board in raising standards, and it is right to pay tribute to its work in that regard. I believe that the board also managed to improve the reputation of the industry, as a result of which the FSA has said that it can grant due credit to the firms that have been in good standing with the MCCB.

Mark Field: We all accept that there has been a certain level of regulation in respect of mortgages and other matters. The Financial Services Authority investigates a range of matters affecting the industry, and it is important to restore full consumer confidence in it. We have heard about the 67,000 people who have fully fledged qualifications to deal with mortgages, but does the Minister believe that the principle of caveat emptor has been ignored for too long and needs to be re-established more firmly in her negotiations with the FSA—on mortgages and, indeed, on other financial products?

Ruth Kelly: We are practically in a unique position on mortgage regulation. It was called for not merely by the Treasury and the FSA but by consumer associations and, indeed, the industry itself. I think that everyone agrees that mortgage regulation will benefit millions of consumers. The FSA has approached the matter in line with its statutory objectives, on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, to introduce a process that will benefit everyone.

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend will know that the Treasury Committee has been looking into endowment mortgages and the mis-selling in the 1980s and 1990s that was unchecked by any appropriate regulation. We concluded that, despite FSA regulation,
	"buying any with-profits policy remains an 'act of faith' for consumers".
	Will she continue discussions with the FSA on improving regulation to protect consumers of those and similar products?

Ruth Kelly: We welcome the Treasury Committee's report on endowment mortgages. Mortgage regulation is an important component in restoring trust in the industry. Looking more broadly at endowment mortgages and other aspects of the financial services industry, people can have confidence that the FSA is one of the leading regulators in the field and that, as firms move to the realistic accounting regime this year and next year, they will become soundly capitalised. We can look forward to a future in which people really have trust and confidence in the financial services industry.

John McFall: The regulation of the mortgage industry from October is a welcome step, but the Financial Secretary knows that the home reversion or equity release scheme is wholly unregulated. I am aware that the Treasury is holding a consultation exercise on that, but may I gently remind my hon. Friend to get a move on? There is an impending crisis in that field, and elderly people will be the most vulnerable in a market crying out for regulation. Will she take one step ahead of the game and ensure that such regulation is introduced timeously to tie in with the mortgage regulation starting in October?

Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his continued and sustained interest in an issue that I have discussed with him on several occasions. As he is aware, mortgage-based equity schemes can be, and are, regulated by the FSA. However, home reversion plans, which are not mortgage-based products, do not fall into the same category. When we first considered the issue, in November last year, we asked the industry for evidence of consumer detriment and it did not have sufficient to hand; so, aware of the risks involved in the selling of those products, we launched a formal consultation process to gather evidence. The consultation closed on 13 February, by which time more than 50 responses had been received. I am aware of the intense interest in the subject and I hope shortly to announce a decision on regulation in that field.

Whisky Strip Stamps

Annabelle Ewing: What representations he has received from the First Minister on whisky strip stamps.

John Healey: I recognise the strength of feeling about tax stamps, especially in Scotland and, both before and after the Budget, I discussed their introduction with the Scottish Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. Following the Chancellor's announcement in the pre-Budget report, I and Treasury officials have held almost 50 separate meetings with the industry and other interested parties, including the Scottish Executive and Members on both sides of the House.

Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Minister for his answer, but he will be aware that, last week, Scotland's First Minister expressed his disappointment at the Chancellor's decision to impose strip stamps on the whisky industry. He may also be aware that the Scottish Parliament carried a motion yesterday expressing its disappointment. The motion was carried overwhelmingly and had the support of all Labour MSPs. In the light of that, is the UK Treasury really prepared to ride roughshod over the voice of Scotland's Parliament, or will it now listen to the all-party consensus in Scotland and abandon the measures, which threaten vital Scottish jobs?

John Healey: There is not all-party consensus in Scotland; after the full debate yesterday, the Scottish Parliament did not pass the motion that had been tabled by the hon. Lady's colleagues. Let me read from that motion, as it is quite clear that the Scottish National party is looking to turn the legitimate concerns of the Scottish spirits industry into a campaign for tax independence. The motion said—

Annabelle Ewing: It was an all-party motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must let the Minister reply.

John Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	The Scottish National party's motion yesterday said that
	"the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for the setting of all national taxation within Scotland."
	That is in contrast to the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends; in contrast to those of the Scottish Executive; and in contrast to those of the Scotch Whisky Association, which recognises that we have looked hard for three years at all the alternatives to tax stamps. We must—and will—act to reduce fraud by using tax stamps. The interests of the Scotch whisky industry are best served by detailed work between the industry and the Government on the way that we design and implement the new system, following the Budget. That is what the industry and the Government are doing, and it is the right thing to be doing.

George Foulkes: Does the Minister agree that the matter is principally for Members of this United Kingdom Parliament? However, as one of the Members who represent—as you know, Mr. Speaker—Grant's at Girvan and Glen Catrine bonded distillery, may I tell my hon. Friend that there is still some disquiet about the introduction of the stamps? The Scottish Affairs Committee is undertaking an inquiry. Will he give an undertaking that he will hold off any implementation of the proposal until the Scottish Affairs Committee has made its report, particularly in relation to the operation of similar schemes in other countries?

John Healey: The Scottish Executive and people in Scotland who have a very active interest in the issue, such as my right hon. Friend, recognise and understand that they have no responsibility to protect public revenues and no duty to act to stamp out fraud—that is a matter for the UK Government. Faced with fraud on such a scale, it is our duty to act, and we will act. We will legislate in the Finance Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said, but let me be clear that the interests of the industry are best served by helping us to design and implement the scheme in a way that minimises the cost to the industry. I recognise the continuing concerns, particularly north of the border, but it is in the industry's interests to help us to work out how we can best minimise its costs through the measures that we have promised to implement.

Robert Smith: In responding to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Minister did not make it clear whether he was willing to wait for the Scottish Affairs Committee to produce its comparative study of the impact on other countries. Although he is right to say that we should tackle fraud, if the method that he proposes does not work, he will have put an unnecessary burden on a vital industry in Scotland. Does he recognise that the burden is not just about new equipment or cash flow as a result of having to buy the stamps; there is real concern, especially among the smaller manufacturers, about the ongoing costs of slowing down production lines and the fact that their businesses will become less efficient? There is no point in making businesses less efficient if the method does not achieve the goal. Will he therefore wait for the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee?

John Healey: I am well aware of the Scottish Affairs Committee's interest in the systems in other countries. Indeed, I followed with interest the programme of fact-finding visits that it has undertaken to the US, Ireland and the isle of Islay. I also look forward to spending at least a couple of hours with members of the Select Committee this afternoon, when they will have a chance to grill me to their hearts' content and at length.
	We have considered the alternatives with the industry for nearly three years now. We will legislate in the Finance Bill to introduce a system of tax stamps, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we will also legislate in the Finance Bill to freeze the duty on spirits for the rest of this Parliament, thus effectively cutting the duty on a bottle by 36p over the next two years. On any calculation that the industry has produced, that will more than cover the compliance costs per bottle, about which he is concerned.

Poverty (Ogmore)

Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will make a statement on the effects of poverty in Ogmore of (a) the measures introduced by his Department since 1997 and (b) the measures announced in the recent Budget.

Paul Boateng: Ogmore, like the rest of Wales and the United Kingdom, has benefited from a range of measures in this and previous Budgets to reduce unemployment and make work pay and to raise the incomes of the poorest pensioners and families with children.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that, sometimes, when faced with controversial votes, hon. Members will say, "I am voting with the angels." Does he think that those archangels of the socialist movement, Keir Hardie and Nye Bevan, will be smiling down on those who voted for the minimum wage, the new deal, Sure Start and other policies aimed at achieving full employment? Does he think that they would see any sign of redemption among Conservative Members who voted against those policies and who cling to outdated dogma about tax on the poorest?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Smile they certainly would, but try as they might I do not think that they would be able to find much scope for redemption.

Employment

Iain Luke: If he will make a statement on his aim to achieve full employment.

Gordon Brown: The claimant count is now 2.9 per cent—the lowest for 30 years. There are more people in work in Britain today than ever in our history. Our new deal for skills seeks to move us further and faster towards full employment.
	I inform the House that today the Treasury is announcing appointments to the court of the Bank of England. Sir John Parker, chairman of National Grid Transco, has been appointed to the court. He will take over from Sir David Cooksey as its non-executive member early next year. I can also announce the reappointment of Kate Barker as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee.

Iain Luke: I share my right hon. Friend's vision of full employment. Does he agree that a return to short-term policies of boom and bust would inevitably lead towards revisiting the horrific unemployment that we experienced in the 1980s and early 1990s?

Gordon Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The challenge is to move towards full employment, and that means that every region and nation can benefit from employment opportunities for all. That is why, even at this stage, I hope that Members of all parties will support the new deal and the new deal for skills that we announced in the Budget. Those on the Conservative Front Bench should look at the success of the new deal. In the constituency of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), only eight young people are unemployed, and only 10 are long-term unemployed.

Anne McIntosh: I appreciate that the Chancellor is deeply wedded to the new deal. Will he look favourably at extending the new deal to 50-year-olds who lose their jobs within six months, when their confidence and morale is at its lowest? They cannot apply under the new deal for those six months.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for proposing that we extend the new deal to make it more accessible to the over-50s. I agree with her that we need to do more to help the over-50s, as we have by making it easy for them to get back to work. The issue that the hon. Lady has lies with the shadow Chancellor, who wishes to abolish the new deal. Perhaps he might listen to her and to the previous shadow Chancellor, who believes that the new deal has done a great deal of good, should be continued and should be extended.

Meg Munn: Unemployment in my constituency, where many people run small businesses, is down significantly, but there are not as many entrepreneurs in Yorkshire generally as there are in the south of England. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage more people to start their own businesses?

Gordon Brown: In fact, there are over 100,000 more small businesses than in 1997. More people are starting businesses and there is more help for those who do so. The Small Business Service has been devolved to the regions, and that should enable people to get more help to start businesses. I agree with my hon. Friend that creating more entrepreneurs and making it possible for people to start a business will help enterprise and the move towards full employment. She will note the importance of the new deal in helping people to get jobs or to start businesses. Surely it is time that there was consensus in the House on keeping and expanding the new deal instead of abolishing it.

Pensioners (Warrington, North)

Helen Jones: How many pensioners in Warrington, North will benefit from the £100 allowance announced in the Budget; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Boateng: The number of pensioner households with at least one occupant aged 70 or over in Warrington, North who will benefit from the £100 payment this year is around 7,000.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. The announcement in the Budget was welcome to pensioners in my constituency. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all pensioners who should receive the extra allowance are aware of it and know when it will be paid, so that they can be reassured?

Paul Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will certainly be taking measures to ensure that all pensioners are aware of that to which they are entitled. I commend my hon. Friend for all the work that she does in Warrington to ensure that pensioners are fully aware of their entitlement. I know that she will include in that the recent reforms to council tax benefit, which will mean that more than half of all pensioner households could be eligible.

David Laws: Does the Chief Secretary accept the TUC's criticism of the policy—that it is badly targeted not only because it will help wealthier pensioners, but because it will do nothing for people on low pay who have been hit by the increase in council tax? Is not the only answer to a bad council tax policy to scrap it and replace it with a fairer tax?

Paul Boateng: No. The average council tax per dwelling in 2004–05 for Labour councils is £870. Let us compare that with £971 for Liberal Democrat councils and £1,072 for Conservative councils. So, we will take no lessons from Opposition Members in that regard.

Personal Statement

Beverley Hughes: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement to the House.
	Over the past four weeks I have faced sustained parliamentary and media criticism over our system of immigration controls. I understand why people feel so strongly about these issues—they touch on some of our deepest concerns about the security and identity of our country. I have done my best to answer honestly and directly whatever questions and allegations I have faced, and to ensure that we look hard at the issues raised to see where we might need to take further action.
	I am confident that at all times I have acted properly and in the best interests of the people of this country, and I am proud of what I have achieved over the past two years. None the less, it has become clear to me that, however unwittingly, I may have given a misleading impression in my interviews on Monday night about whether any of the concerns expressed about the operation of clearance controls from Romania and Bulgaria had crossed my desk at any stage in the past two years.
	On Tuesday, in order to prepare for the next phase of the Sutton inquiry, I asked for all the relevant files and paperwork to be reviewed in order to ensure that everything was correctly disclosed. During this process it was discovered that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) had written to me a year ago drawing my attention to pro forma business plans submitted by UK solicitors in Romanian and Bulgarian cases. I did, in fact, take action at that time on advice from officials to address those concerns. I realised that that was what my hon. Friend was referring to when he mentioned that correspondence to me briefly in the Lobby recently.
	On Wednesday, having re-read the interviews that I gave on Monday, I realised that what I said then was not fully consistent with that correspondence. Once the full picture was clear to me, I asked to see both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to explain that I had decided that I could not continue. I have always said that in my political and my personal life nothing is more important than my integrity, and although I did not intentionally mislead anyone I have decided that I cannot in conscience continue to serve as immigration Minister.
	I believe strongly that on an issue as sensitive as immigration—one so open to misunderstanding—there is a special obligation on me as Minister to set the highest standards, not only in my personal integrity, but in the policies that we pursue. I am proud of what we have done in turning round the asylum system, which has had huge problems over many years. I know that there is more to do in immigration. I know it will be done, but I do hope that in doing it we can strike a balance between the necessary rules and order and recognition of the contribution that many generations of migrants have made and will continue to make to this country.
	I am enormously grateful for the opportunity to serve as a Minister during the past five years in the most successful Labour Government in our party's history. I am proud to have played a part in our achievements, and I look forward to continuing to work for our party from the Back Benches.
	Last, but not least, I want to thank my family and friends, local party members and constituents, the Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends in the parliamentary Labour party for their strong support, especially during recent weeks. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the Home Secretary for his personal support and friendship over many years and the opportunity to work with him in government.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Cory Collusion Inquiry

Paul Murphy: I am sure that the House will have been impressed by the dignity of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes).
	At Weston Park in the summer of 2001, the British and Irish Governments announced their intention to appoint a judge of international standing to look at six cases—the murders of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, Pat Finucane, Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright. Both Governments acknowledged that these were the source of grave public concern. The two Governments are determined that where there are allegations of collusion the truth should emerge. These murders were horrific events, causing pain to the families that still continues today.
	In May 2002, the two Governments announced the appointment of the Honourable Justice Peter Cory, a retired member of the Canadian Supreme Court, to conduct the investigation. Justice Cory presented separate reports to the British and Irish Governments on 7 October.
	I am grateful to Justice Cory and his team for their hard work and commitment. In undertaking this important task he has laboured long hours at significant personal cost. I am grateful to the families who spoke to him and to all those who made submissions to him.
	In presenting his reports to the Governments, Justice Cory expressed the hope that his investigation would contribute to the very difficult task of achieving peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and I share that wish.
	I want to make clear at the outset the Government's unequivocal view that, without the professional and steadfast work of the police, Army, Prison Service and many others in the wider public service over many years, we would not have achieved the progress that we have made towards securing a permanent peace and an enduring reconciliation. That is, I believe, both a justified and necessary acknowledgement, which I warmly give to the House.
	I am today publishing the four reports that were presented to the British Government—those relating to Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Billy Wright. In line with Justice Cory's terms of reference, the only redactions that have been made are those that were necessary to ensure that the privacy and right to life of individuals is protected, and that the Government's obligations in relation to ensuring justice and protecting national security are maintained. Redactions are clearly shown in the text of those reports. As agreed with the judge, redacted text will be placed in secret sealed appendices.
	Justice Cory presented his reports on 7 October. They are extensive and in total are around 500 pages long. Since we received the judge's reports we have had to consider most carefully a number of important issues, as we said we would in the judge's terms of reference: national security, the protection of life, the criminal justice process and fairness to those named in the reports. In two of the four cases, police investigations or prosecutions continue, and in a third prosecutions were pending until very recently. We have kept in touch with Justice Cory throughout that process, and I talked to him yesterday.
	We have considered carefully our obligation to ensure fairness to individuals. At our request, Justice Cory has added a foreword to the reports, which makes it clear that it was not his task to make final determinations of fact or attributions of responsibility, and his findings are necessarily provisional. I would, of course, have liked to publish the reports sooner, but the Government have a duty to ensure that they meet all their obligations, including fairness not only to the families, but to those who could be identified in the reports.
	Justice Cory's approach has been to adopt a very wide definition of collusion that covers both inaction as well as action, and patterns of behaviour as well as individual acts of collusion. On that basis, the judge has decided that there are instances in each case where it could be provisionally found that there was collusion. In each case, he recommends that those questions should be examined and tested further in the course of inquiries. For that reason, the Government have not taken a view on Justice Cory's provisional findings, which he has reached as a result of his wide definition of collusion, but his reports raise matters that will cause serious concern. I agree wholeheartedly with Justice Cory's view that the public must have confidence in public institutions.
	The Government stand by the commitment that we made at Weston Park. In the Wright case, there are no outstanding investigations or prosecutions, and the inquiry will start work as soon as possible; it will be established under the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.
	In the Finucane case, an individual is currently being prosecuted for the murder, and the police investigation by Sir John Stevens and his team continues. It is not possible to say whether further prosecutions will follow, and the conclusion of the criminal justice process in that case is thus some way in the future. For that reason, we will set out the way ahead at the conclusion of prosecutions.
	In the Hamill case, there are now no outstanding investigations or prosecutions, and the public inquiry will be set up as soon as possible under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act.
	The police investigation in the Nelson case continues, but it is expected to end in the next few months. The Chief Constable has advised me that the establishment of a public inquiry would not prejudice the investigation, and the inquiry will therefore begin work as soon as possible. It will also take place under the 1998 Act, and it will examine the actions of the police and the Northern Ireland Office.
	I recognise that the requirement in the Finucane case to wait until criminal proceedings are complete will disappoint some, but public interest demands that prosecutions should be pursued to their conclusion and that wrongdoers should be punished. As Justice Cory says:
	"Society must be assured that those who commit a crime will be prosecuted and if found guilty punished."
	The inquiries will have the full powers of the High Court to compel witnesses and papers. The powers are the same as those granted to inquiries set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, under which the Bloody Sunday inquiry operates. In addition, the police and prisons Acts enable me, as Secretary of State, to make provision for certain matters—for example, costs and expenses.
	I know that concern has been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the length and cost of some public inquiries. In particular, there are concerns about the cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry—£129.9 million to date, with a predicted final cost of £155 million. I understand that unhappiness, but setting up that inquiry was the right thing to do, and I commend the work of Lord Saville and his team. Having been established, the inquiry must run its course if it is to be fair to individuals and if the truth is to emerge.
	We will, of course, take all reasonable steps to control costs in the inquiries that I have announced today, including capping legal costs where appropriate. We will ensure that the inquiries have the maximum powers, as well as aiming for better, quicker inquiries. Even so, these inquiries will inevitably mean the commitment of significant resources. The Government recognise people's desire to see public funds spent on delivering better public services and effective policing. I recognise public concern about further expenditure on inquiries into the past.
	This Government have shown repeatedly that the state is open to scrutiny for its actions. We established the Bloody Sunday inquiry. The investigation by Sir John Stevens continues and has yielded prosecutions. We appointed Justice Cory, with the Irish Government. Wrongdoers will be brought to justice. I firmly believe that the only way we can put the past behind us in Northern Ireland is by seeking to establish the truth; but that must be the truth about the actions of all those who have been involved in the tragedy of the past 30 years.
	I started this statement with a warm tribute to the police, the Army, the Prison Service and public servants in general, and I underline that. Too many of those people have lost their lives to terrorism, and their sacrifice is not forgotten. However, Justice Cory's reports raise serious questions that it is right to address further.
	I am under no illusions about the fact that confronting the past is a difficult and painful process. The Government and their agencies are ready to play their part. We need to find a way of remembering the past, while not allowing it to hinder progress in future. Northern Ireland needs greater reconciliation between the communities; that is where all our attention needs to be directed. We should ensure that we do not concentrate on divisive issues from the past at the expense of securing the future.

David Lidington: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in letting me have a couple of hours advance sight of his statement and the reports from Justice Cory.
	The allegations that gave rise to the right hon. Gentleman's statement are of the utmost gravity. The duty of our security forces is to uphold the rule of law. In performing that duty, they must be subject to the rule of law. I want to make it clear that Conservative Members do not, and never will, excuse or condone deliberate illegal acts by members of the security forces or others in the service of Government.
	I have met bereaved relatives from both sides of the community divide in Northern Ireland. I know that their agony is real and that their grief and sense of loss is enduring. My fear is that the Government's actions announced today will not provide justice and will not help to build the reconciliation that the Secretary of State rightly seeks.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, three years ago the Government agreed to commission these reports and to establish public inquiries if that were the recommendation of the judge appointed, but the Weston Park agreement also talked of the need to decommission weapons and for all parties to support the police. Those things have not happened, yet today the Government press ahead with the implementation of what must be counted a foolish pledge to hold public inquiries into four selected cases of murder.
	I have several questions for the right hon. Gentleman. First, on the report itself, will he confirm that Justice Cory looked only at documentary evidence; that he spoke to none of the people who are identified in his report; and that Judge Cory gave no individual the chance to comment on the criticisms that were made of him? Does the Minister agree that the judge has chosen a very broad definition of collusion that might cover poor management and error, as well as deliberate acts? Does he agree, too, that although the judge has not published the names of the people responsible for alleged collusion, he has given and published descriptions that will make it very easy for those people to be identified? Have the Government considered whether those individuals are likely to need some kind of protection?
	Secondly, does the Secretary of State agree that it will be practically impossible for anyone who is the subject of the public inquiries to get a fair trial? Does not his decision, in effect, rule out the prospect of criminal prosecutions in the Nelson, Hamill and Wright cases? In the Finucane case, of course, a man has been charged and is awaiting trial, but, irrespective of whether that trial results in a conviction or an acquittal, how can it be possible or just to hold a public inquiry to examine an individual's conduct after a court of law has made its decision?
	Thirdly, on the costs of the public inquiries, how does the Secretary of State propose to avoid the inquiries dragging on for years, like Saville, and costing millions of pounds that could otherwise be spent on policing Northern Ireland? Is he not in a cleft stick? If he puts a cap on either the time or the money, it will surely lead to allegations of a Government cover-up or injustice, and is likely only to add to bitterness rather than to heal it.
	Fourthly, is the Secretary of State not uneasy about the selective nature of the inquiries that the Government have announced today? There are about 1,800 other unsolved murders from during the troubles in Northern Ireland. In 1989 alone, the year in which Mr. Finucane was murdered, there were 81 deaths, including the murder of no fewer than 35 members of the security forces. Their families still grieve and feel that justice has not been done. What hope and comfort do the Government feel able to offer the hundreds of families whose cases have not been covered by today's statement or the forthcoming inquiries?
	Finally, would it not be the greatest travesty of justice if we let the alleged actions of a few denigrate and besmirch the collective reputations of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces? Surely those are people who for 30 years performed their duties to the highest standards of professionalism, courage and even-handedness against wicked and evil terrorists who were prepared to maim and murder at random in their effort to destroy the rule of law. They are the people who often paid the ultimate sacrifice in defending democracy for all the people of these islands. Are not members of the police, Prison Service and armed forces the very people to whom we and the huge majority of decent law-abiding people in Northern Ireland continue to owe the greatest debt of all?

Paul Murphy: I agree that we must pay tribute to the collective reputation of the RUC, the armed forces and others who kept Northern Ireland afloat over the past 30 years and were able to ensure that some sort of normal life continued. I mentioned that at both the beginning and end of my statement, and I repeat it because it is important to emphasise the fact. I also agree that we cannot forget those who perished in Northern Ireland over three decades—the hon. Gentleman mentioned 1,800 people—and whose murders are unsolved. I know, too, that there is a strong feeling among people and bodies such as the Police Federation about the need to do what we can to find out what happened to the people in the RUC who died. It is by no means a one-sided affair.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government made a pledge at Weston Park. It is important to honour the pledge and we stand by our commitment. Justice Cory held an independent international inquiry, so it is for him to comment on the nature of it. Those who have the opportunity to read his reports will get some ideas about how he carried it out. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the broad definition of collusion. The definition is indeed broad, and when people read the reports, they will understand what is meant by it.
	On people who are referred to by letter rather than by name in the reports, there is a duty of care on behalf of the Government, agencies and the police to ensure that those who work for the Government in some form or another are protected. If and when inquiries are concluded regarding people who would have been found culpable of collusion, it is also the Government's duty to ensure that they are charged if they have committed any crime. The Attorney-General assures me that the only issue that carried a difficulty with regard to a trial was the one regarding the case of Mr. Finucane, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point about that.
	I share the view of all hon. Members that we do not want hundreds of millions of pounds to be spent on the inquiries if that is unnecessary. We have chosen the vehicle of the police and prisons Acts to ensure that I have some control over costs and expenses so that that situation does not arise. However, we must of course have proper inquiries, and proper inquiries they will be.

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in providing me with early sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats welcome the publication of the report, which has been a long time coming. The prospect of collusion is serious and destabilising in Northern Ireland, especially at a time when we are trying to create a unified cross-community security service that enjoys the trust of everyone there.
	I am more than a little surprised by the Conservative party's position. It is clear that a Conservative Government would not regard Cory's findings as sufficient grounds for inquiries, but that is a serious error of judgment. Liberal Democrats would take the opposite view and say that the grounds are there for inquiries to take place.
	I have three short questions. Is there any prospect of intelligence personnel or other witnesses being granted anonymity or immunity from prosecution, as was the case in the Saville inquiry? Secondly, what plans do the Government have to ensure that there is closure for others who have suffered similar losses and still feel that their grievances have remained unaddressed? In fairness, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that hundreds of people feel that way.
	Thirdly, and finally, the Secretary of State said that the Saville inquiry is set to cost 155 million. He talks about capping legal costs, so will he assure us specifically that that means that he will put a financial ceiling on the expenditure for the inquiries, and, if so, what is that limit?

Paul Murphy: I have not yet gone into the detail, but if I find that the costs are becoming unreasonable I would not hesitate to do such a thing. However, we must always ensure that we have proper inquiries and tribunals.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the reports. I repeat that the powers of the inquiries will be exactly the same as those of the Saville inquiry regarding people who work in the intelligence services and so on. I take his point about the unsolved murders across the board in Northern Ireland. I know that the Chief Constable is well aware of that and that he has a review team in his headquarters to examine unsolved murders. As always, of course, there is a problem with resources. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Policing Board has indicated concern that it needs the money that it currently has to engage in current prosecutions and investigations. It is obviously a potent issue in Northern Ireland. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's view about costs, we must ensure that we have proper inquiries.

Eddie McGrady: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement as an important contribution to sustaining the peace process in Northern Ireland and furthering the community's emerging confidence in the judicial and security position. The statement is vital from that perspective.
	The Secretary of State said that collusion between the state and paramilitaries was outrageous. The six casesthe four that he announced and the other two, into the murders of Superintendents Buchanan and Breen and Lord Justice and Lady Gibson, which are within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Irelandepitomise in the Northern Ireland psyche the alleged collusion between state and paramilitaries. That is why they are so important. That is not to diminish the pain, suffering, grief, trauma and continuing hurt that all the families in both our communities in Northern Ireland have endured in the past 30 years. The suffering continues. However, surely it is correct that cases that involve a belief that substantive collusion in murder has taken place between the state and paramilitaries are exceptional, and it is important that they are resolved as far as possible. As the Secretary of State said, the Government have made their decision in pursuit of the truth, not vengeance.
	In establishing the inquiries, the Secretary of State appears to make a distinction between three cases and the Finucane case. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party fought hard and long at Weston Park for inquiries into the six cases to be established immediately. Will he undertake that, when the conditions are fulfilled for the Finucane casethat must be fairly soona similar inquiry will be put in train, as agreed at Weston Park?

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important for hon. Members to realise that, without the constant work of my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the SDLP, I would not be announcing the inquiries into the cases of Hamill, Wright and Nelson today. As I have already explained, the Finucane case is different because of the approaching prosecution. It might be useful to quote the Weston Park commitment, to which I referred earlier. It states:
	If the appointed judge considers that in any case this has not provided a sufficient basis on which to establish the facts, he or she can report to this effect with recommendations as to what further action should be taken. In the event that a public inquiry is recommended in any case, the relevant Government will implement that recommendation.

Peter Robinson: I note that the Secretary of State said in his statement that the three inquiries with which he is proceeding will be conducted under two separate measures: the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Is there any difference in style or power between the inquiries that will be held under the two measures? Will both sorts of inquiry fulfil the basic requirements that Cory set down on page 93 of the Wright report, which lists several criteria for a public inquiry?
	If the Secretary of State has the power to cap, does that mean that the money will come from the Northern Ireland block and thus be taken from front-line services, rather than from the Exchequer? Will he accept the suggestion that it is better to set a ceiling now than cap later, when it may well be put to him that he is doing so because he is unhappy about the inquiries progress?
	The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Saville inquiry was right and necessary to get to the truth. Does he have any misgivings when some of those who called for it refused to answer questions at the inquiry, and indicated that they had a higher codethe code of the IRA?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the nature of the inquiries and whether they are the same in what they can do. The answer is, of course, yes. Like the Bloody Sunday inquiry, they will have exactly the same powers under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. They will have the powers of the High Court to compel witnesses to appear and papers to be produced. There is no difference in that respect.
	I have not yet reached a decision about costs because we are only now announcing the inquiries. I shall take advice on the matter in the next few weeks and I shall take the hon. Gentleman's words into account. He is right to point to the difficulties that the Northern Ireland block could face in the effect on hospitals, schools, roads, transport and so on. I assure him that the money for the inquiries will not come from the Northern Ireland block, but it will come from the Exchequer and the Northern Ireland Office. Although that might not affect the services that the Assembly will provide when it is up and running again, it will nevertheless affect services to the people of Northern Ireland.

Kevin McNamara: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and join him in congratulating Mr. Justice Cory on his work in the past few months.
	Does my right hon. Friend accept that the deaths are linked by the belief of the families and their wider communities that the failure of the police to investigate effectively can be explained only by collusion and the involvement of state agents in the deaths, and that that was determined by the need to maintain and protect informants?
	Does my right hon. Friend also agree that, by those means, some elements of the security forces under successive Governments have contributed to undermining the rule of law, and that the process that we have created in the Good Friday agreement requires us to face up to our responsibilities? If we rightly expect paramilitary organisations to take responsibility and admit their actions, there is an even greater burden on a democratically elected Government, who are committed to the rule of law, to do the same.
	What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure the full compliance of all the military and intelligence services in the inquiries, given the examples of a lack of effective and willing co-operation in the Saville inquiry? What steps has he taken to win the support and involvement of the Finucane family? Barrett was arrested and confessed to Finucane's death in 1991. He was then recruited into special service and the tape of his confession was lost. What steps

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he has put several supplementary questions to the Secretary of State? In fairness to other hon. Members, I must now ask the Secretary of State to reply.

Kevin McNamara: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to outline the importance of the families in all the inquiries. I mentioned in my statement that we recognise the grief and the pain that they have suffered.
	As I said earlier, the Government are determined to find the truth about allegations of collusion. That is why we established the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the inquiries that we are considering. It is also why the ongoing Stevens inquiry was set up. I hope that there will be co-operation from other Departments and agencies to make the inquiries meaningful. I am sure that that will happen.

David Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I have also seen the Finucane report but not the others. Looking at the report, I find it most unfortunate that Justice Cory seems to have failed to understand the circumstances and background of the situation with which he was dealing. I refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 1.183, which contains a slurI hope an unintentional oneby Cory on Catholic members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. His failure to understand that there were a significant number of such officers in high positions is most unfortunate.
	I also refer the Secretary of State to paragraph 1.304, which refers to:
	The Good Friday Accord and the Weston Park Agreement, which set out the selected cases as an integral part of the Accord.
	That is quite wrong. There is a clear difference, in terms of the agreement. These cases were not in the Belfast agreement. They were not part of any agreement in that sense. Indeed, the Secretary of State will recall that there was a clear consensus in the agreement that the need in Northern Ireland was for a process of reconciliation. Yes, the past has to be dealt with, but in a way that does not add to the bitterness. That was clearly what was then intended. Unfortunately, however, the Government departed from that approach by agreeing to establish this inquiry process.
	The references in paragraphs 1.256 and 1.259 to Finucane's background display astonishing naivet by Justice Cory. His comments about Finucane ignore facts that were known to everyone in Northern Ireland. What steps were taken to give Justice Cory information about the nature of the situation in Northern Ireland, about how the police and the Army operated there, about how people such as Mr. Finucane operated and about the nature of his associations and contacts? Was anything done to try to explain such things to Justice Cory? That is an important point.
	It is particularly unfortunate, in view of the very broad definition of collusion that Cory has adopted, that he should spread assertionsin fact, accusationsabout such a range of people. The report contains a couple of paragraphs in which he attacks the former Chief Constable, Sir Ronald Flanagan. He does not mention him by name, but it is perfectly obvious to whom he is referring. He then makes negative comments about the special branch and the force research unit, and some sweeping comments about the Army and the RUC as a whole. As has emerged from the comments by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), no opportunity was given to any of those bodies to reply to the accusations that were made. Cory seems simply to have got a document in his hand and proceeded to give his interpretation of it, without knowing anything about the surrounding circumstances or the other considerations involved.
	This is not a terribly good basis for governmental decisions, and I fear that the Government have got themselves trapped into proceeding in the way that they are now doing. I know that they have tried to mitigate the effect of Cory by getting him to insert a foreword into the report, and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will read that foreword, which contains a general withdrawal of specific accusations which, if they read the report by itself, would lead them in another direction.
	I opposed the concept of having inquiries of this nature. They are contrary to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. Indeed, I personally warned the Prime Minister that arranging the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday would be a mistake, and so it has proved. It is a pity that that mistake has been reinforced, but if, as a result of this, the truth about Finucane and Nelson comes incontrovertibly into the public domain, there will be some side effects. I mention those two cases particularly because a lot of Wright's background and terrorist activities are in the public domain, and I leave out Hamill because there is no reason whatever to link him with others who have a clear terrorist connection. That does not come out

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we cannot explore the full details of this matter today? This is a statement, and supplementary questions can be put to the Secretary of State, but we cannot have a full-blown debate. Perhaps another time.

Paul Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman managed to make a fair number of points while he was on his feet. I very much welcome his comments about the foreword to the report, because it puts the matters into context. I am glad that he emphasised that to the House. In terms of the contents of the report, this was obviously a completely independent investigation and a completely independently produced report. It is therefore for Justice Cory to make his own comments on the matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I emphasise that it is Justice Cory's report, not the Government's.
	I accept the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's point about reconciliation being at the heart of the Belfast agreement. I know that, when the right hon. Gentleman has asked me what we should do about dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, I take the issue extremely seriously because more than 30 years of troubles, misery and death in Northern Ireland have produced some terrible things, right across the board, and it is very important that we move forward. However, we also have to ensure that we uncover the truth.

Andrew MacKay: Looking back on my four years as shadow Secretary of State during the last Parliament, my greatest regret is that I supported the setting up of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday. Does the Secretary of State accept that no good will come of that inquiry and that it is simply a huge waste of taxpayers' money? Because of that, and in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has said today, most hon. Members will have the gravest reservations about these new inquiries and about where they might lead.

Paul Murphy: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these inquiries resulted from an undertaking given at Weston Park, and the Government have decided to implement them. So far as the inquiry into Bloody Sunday is concerned, it was and still is the Government's view that the issue was so important that an inquiry had to be held. However, I have taken on board the points made across the House that there is a need to examine the costs and the time involved in these inquiries, and the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall do both.

Nigel Dodds: In relation to the inquiries that the Secretary of State has announced, will he accept that, first and foremost, they must be aimed at getting at the truth rather than at the furthering of any narrow political advantage? On costs, will he accept that the inquiries must in no circumstances be turned into long-drawn-out Saville inquiry-type sagas, with all the associated horrendous costs? Bearing in mind the thousands of victims in Northern Ireland, none of whom should be forgotten and who have already been referred to by hon. Members on this side of the House today, does he also accept that many people believe that there should be an inquiry into the role and conduct of those who aspire to government, like Martin McGuinness, for instance, and Gerry Adams, who are part and parcel of the IRA-Sinn Fein organisation, who are responsible for many of the unsolved murders and other murders in Northern Ireland? Let us take the Hegarty case and the La Mon bombing. Both those gentlemen are associated with both those incidents. Will the Secretary of State indicate what proposals he has in relation to those cases, and, for instance, in relation to the collusion of the Dublin Government at the time of the formation of the IRA in the late 1960s? When are we going to have those issues addressed, and what does the Secretary of State have to say about them today?

Paul Murphy: There were a number of issues there, too. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, at the end of the day, the establishment of the truth matters above all else. I hope that these inquiries will do precisely that. I have already touched on the question of costs a number of times, and I share his view on that. Everyone in the House agrees that victims are not confined to one side or the other. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who deals with these matters, does a tremendous job in trying to deal with victims right across the different traditions in Northern Ireland. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point with regard to those issues.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must inform the House that I am going to impose a ration of one supplementary question per hon. Member, as should be the case at all times except for right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches.

Stephen Pound: As ever, Mr. Speaker, I shall be extremely brief.
	Like all people of good will, I welcome the report and hope that it will continue to build on the successes of the Good Friday agreement; I hope that the boil will finally be lanced. In view of the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned so many other cases, does the Secretary of State agree that this might be the time for us to consider establishing some form of truth and reconciliation commission, finally to resolve these problems?

Paul Murphy: That may be the case. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must look to the future, and not look to the past all the time. There comes a stage at which it is counter-productive to keep looking at the past, bearing it in mind that blame can go right across the board. There is a case for considering a truth and remembrance or truth and reconciliation commissioncall it what one willbut any decisions on those matters would have to have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland to be successful.

David Burnside: With as much humility as I can bring to bear on this subject

Stephen Pound: This will be good.

David Burnside: It will be good. With humility, on behalf of the families of 1,007 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment, may I ask the Secretary of State why is there not a truth commission in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the main problem with having a truth commission, which, I hope, will bring to an end the conflict, is the inability of the Provisional IRA, Gerry I've never been in the IRA Adams and Martin McGuiness to tell the truth rather than deal in lies? Is that not the major difficulty in relation to setting up a truth commission to deal with the problems and bereavement of the families of those 1,007 members of our security forces?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out to the House that more than 1,000 families are affected, whose members were in the police, the Army or other public service. They suffer, too, and there are no public inquiries into their deaths. Obviously, it is important to try to find out who committed the murders, but we must not in any sense undervalue the significance of the grief and pain that those families have undergone. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that. As far as the truthor whatever one wants to call itcommission is concerned, it is right that all parties in Northern Ireland should consider what their attitude to such a commission should be. I am sure that that would apply to all the political parties that currently have representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Edward Garnier: The Secretary of State says in paragraph 8 of his statement that the Government have considered carefully their obligation to ensure fairness to individuals. Where is the fairness in the Government making public allegations of suspected criminal collusion against identified or identifiable individuals who were not given an opportunity by the Cory inquiry to deal with those allegations?

Paul Murphy: The Government, of course, are making no allegations. We will decide what to do when the inquiries have been completed. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman listened to what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about the foreword in the report, which makes it clear that those are not allegations in the sense to which he has just referred. It is important that people understand that. Even though people are not named in that respect in the report, they are referred to by letter, and clearly we had to ensure that that foreword was included to provide those safeguards.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Weston Park talks to which the Secretary of State referred also brought forward a proposal for an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists belonging to the Provisional IRA. Does he understand the deep sense of hurt felt by many victims in Northern Ireland at the apparent hierarchy of victimhood? One the one hand, we have inquiries into some who have lost their lives during the troubles, and on the other, under the Government's proposal, we will allow terrorists who have committed some of the worst atrocities in Northern Ireland, including the Enniskillen bombingthe poppy day massacre when people lost their lives during an act of remembranceto be granted an amnesty. When will the Government treat victims with fairness and impartiality, because it seems that that is not happening?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, that the decision regarding on-the-runs would have to be taken in the context of acts of completion, to which the joint declaration referred. The Government would not do it in any other context. As far as his other general point is concerned, I agree in the sense that victims are not on one side or the other. In the case of most victims in Northern Ireland, their names would not be known outside their families or friends, but they were victims nevertheless. We must remember them on such an occasion, in the same way that we remember others.

Andrew Robathan: It is all very well the Secretary of State praising the armed forces, police and Prison Service, who are public servants doing a very difficult job under dangerous circumstances. It is all very well him saying in his statement that the Government seek to establish the truth about the actions of all those involved in the troubles. But the perception is different, as we have heard from the Unionist Benches and elsewhere. The perception is of a Government bending over backwards to accommodate Sinn Fein and the IRA. If we are to have inquiries, and if we are to seek the truth, will the Government take up the cudgels on behalf of public servants, to whom they owe a duty of care, and who were murdered in the course of their duties protecting this country, and have an inquiry into the collusion and activities of Adams and McGuiness and other IRA people who may have murdered British public servants, and perhaps an inquiry into Warren Point and other unexplained and unresolved massacres?

Paul Murphy: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the inquiries are about establishing the truth about collusion, and the state has a deep responsibility to try to find out the truth in that respect, whoever did it. He is right to point out that not only those people with whom we are dealing today but many thousands of others have died in the troubles in Northern Ireland, across the board and across the political divide. Everybody in the Chamber will have heard what he said, and a number of Members have already indicated that they agree with the points that he made.

Hugh Robertson: I am sure that no one on either side of the House would condone a policy of extra-judicial killings. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind, however, that many of those who served in the security forces in Northern Ireland in the late 1980s and early 1990s did so in the belief that they were fighting a war, and that they were doing so against a terrorist organisation that was extraordinarily well financed and armed, that had the ability to fade back into the civilian population at will, and was widely regarded as the most successful and brutal terrorist organisation in western Europe at that time? Will he ensure that this inquiry is conducted against that backdrop, remembering that, rather than judging by the standards of today?

Paul Murphy: Obviously, the way in which the inquiry is conducted will be a matter for the tribunal. The people who chair these tribunals must, first, have the confidence of people right across the political divisions in Northern Irelandotherwise, it would be pointlessas well as a keen understanding of what the hon. Gentleman rightly refers to. Over three decades, some terrible things happened in Northern Ireland. More than 3,500 people perished in Northern Ireland in 30 years, and there are some terrible tales to tell. I am sure that the people engaged in these tribunals will be very much aware of the point that he rightly makes.

Gregory Campbell: Can the Secretary of State be more precise about the attempt by the Government to put a cap on the cost of the inquiries? He alluded to the cost of the Saville inquiry and will be aware that allusion was made this week in the national press to the fact that, arising from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International collapse, additional tens of millions of pounds may be expended on the Saville inquiry.

Paul Murphy: No, I cannot, because I have not yet considered the detail of it. One of the reasons why we have decided to use these particular Acts of Parliament is that they provide me with the opportunity to cap and to look carefully at costs and expenses. There must always be a balance in terms of ensuring that the tribunal has a proper opportunity to discover the truth and is working properly, and at the same time ensuring that the public purse is not forgotten because, as other Members have said, if we take money from one part of our budget, less will be spent on other aspects of public services. That is an important factor. We will be looking in detail at the matter.

FCO Travel Advice

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the review of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's travel advice, which I am publishing today as a Command Paper.
	Given the constant rise in international travel and in the face of the threat from global terrorism, FCO travel advice is used more and more and is rightly under more scrutiny than ever before. It must be timely and consistent, and must carry public confidence. Much has been done in recent years to improve the quality of the advice, but I believe that we can do more. I therefore announced a review of it to the House in a written statement on 10 December last year. In summary, its terms of reference were to review how FCO advice could best help British travellers to make informed, responsible decisions about possible risks overseas, particularly from terrorism; to assess the proper balance between information, warning and advice, and assess how they could best be presented; and to assess the wider implications of travel advicein particular how, in responding to a terrorist attack, we can ensure that prudent precaution does not become overreaction, which risks playing into the hands of the terrorists.
	The review process included wide consultation with those who have a stake in the travel advice, including parliamentarians, the travel and insurance industries, users of the FCO website, the media, British businesses working abroad, victims of terrorism and their families, and destination countries.
	Travel advice is an important and growing public service. British people made almost 60 million trips abroad in 2003, three times as many as 20 years ago, and more than 15 million UK nationals live overseas. Every week the travel advice pages on the FCO website receive an average of 280,000 hits, and 1,600 people receive travel advice through our telephone call centre. Alongside the continuing growth in travel, however, has come the rise of international terrorism, which aims not only to take innocent lives through indiscriminate attacks but to spread a general sense of fear and instability in order to undermine our freedom and prosperity.
	Our travel advice must inform people of the threat from terrorism, and when the threat is acute it will inevitably lead to some disruption, but at the same time we must ensure that we do not do the terrorists' job by causing too much of the very disruption that they seek. Our intelligence services, the police and all concerned with public safety work extremely hard to discover and disrupt terrorist plans and to break up the networks that support terrorism; but it is in the nature of intelligence on terrorism that sometimes nations will not have enough knowledge to prevent attacks, as we saw only too tragically in the outrages in Madrid on 11 March. When we do have specific evidence of extreme and imminent danger from terrorism abroad, we will of course warn British nationals against travel, but in the case of a general threat issuing a prescription against travel will, I believe, only achieve widespread disruption, which is exactly what the terrorists want. It is unlikely to make people safer.
	We in Britain lived for 30 years with the threat of Irish republican terrorism. Our response was to be alert to danger, to take sensible precautions and to make our own informed judgments about the risk. At the same time, we did not let normal life come to a halt. Indeed, letting normal life go on as much as possible was itself a weapon against the terrorists. Our travel advice needs to strike that important balance, making public safety its prime concern while minimising the disruption that terrorists wish to cause. We must give people the information that they need in order to remain vigilant and make judgments about risk and security, as they have to do every day, while allowing normal life to continue to the greatest possible extent. We must also ensure that our responses to terrorist incidents and threats are consistent. The public and all those with a stake in our advice need reassurance that our approach is rigorous, and based on a sound assessment of intelligence and a balanced approach to the risk.
	We are bound to reflect on charges that the approach has sometimes varied. In the aftermath of the bombing of the British consulate general in Istanbul in November, for a periodon my authoritywe advised against all but essential travel to major cities in Turkey. That was consistent with our current approach, but the Turkish Government made representations to us that no such prescriptive advice was issued in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 atrocities in respect of travel either to New York or to the rest of the United States.
	Although by its nature the threat and the fear of terrorism are hugely amplified by any one incident, it is by no means the main cause of death abroad of United Kingdom citizens, as notified to our posts. In 2002, according to figures that can be found in the consultative Command Paper, 1,427 British citizens died abroad. Of the 316 who died from non-natural causes 158 died in road accidents, 62 in other accidents and 29 as a result of terrorism.
	On the basis of the arguments that I have set out, including the crucial balance between danger and disruption, the review recommends that in the case of intelligence-based terrorist threats we should first give the best possible and most timely description of the terrorist threat, both global and by country, so that travellers can make informed judgments and take appropriate precautions. Secondly, we should only go further and warn against travel in situations of extreme and imminent dangerthat is, if the threat is sufficiently specific, large scale or endemic to affect British nationals severely.
	We all live with the threat of global terrorism. Our response must be not panic but commonsense precautions. The public will only trust our advice on the terrorist threat, first, if they do not think that we advise against travel on the slightest pretext in order to cover our backs, and secondly, if they feel confident that any specific, credible threat that might affect their travel or their behaviour overseas will be conveyed to them. The review recommends that we ensure that our warnings have real teeth by confining them to specific, large-scale and imminent threats, while in other situations giving people the information that they need in order to make informed judgments about the risks they may face and the precautions they can take. We will of course continue to warn against travel, when appropriate, for reasons not based on intelligence on terrorismfor example, when the danger stems from civil disturbances, coups or other causes. That includes geological causes such as earthquakes and volcanoes.
	This and the other recommendations and conclusions of the review are, I believe, well argued and persuasive. As I have said, they reflect widespread consultation. Given the importance of the issues, however, I want to ensure that everyone with an interest has the chance to have their say before I make any changes. I therefore invite Members of both Houses, along with all those with a direct interest in travel advice, to offer their views on the review and on the quality of our advice more generally. That further period of consultation will continue until the end of this month. I shall then announce appropriate revisions to our travel advice system in Parliament.
	I look forward to hearing Members' views in the coming weeks.

Richard Spring: I thank the Foreign Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement and the Command Paper. We are grateful to him for attempting to grasp an issue that is so important to the millions of Britons who travel abroad each year. Particularly in view of that, I welcome the month that has been set aside for consultation, as this directly affects our insurance and travel industries. Let me also express our appreciation to all the Foreign Office personnel and others who have contributed, and pay tribute to thoseall too often unsungwho must make difficult assessments and decisions. I refer to our dedicated and professional consular staff abroad.
	There is always a balance to be struck between giving adequate warning of risks to the travelling public and avoiding unnecessary anxiety, or damaging the travel industry and the economies of holiday or business destinations. Concern about the way in which travel advice is compiled and disseminated is especially relevant following Bali and Mombasa, after which the emphasis on safe travel took on a new meaning and a new importance. Advice must not be ambiguous, but it is equally important for it not to be so blunt as to cause unwarranted panic. We must not allow the destructive forces of terrorism an easy victory. After all, it is their aim to cause panic and instil fear, and disrupt the normal patterns of life. I am aware of the sheer volume of information that our intelligence services gather each day. Anything that improves that sifting process is to be welcomed.
	Many in this House will know personally of what has become something of a rite of passage for so many young people; namely, to take off to the four corners of the earth during their gap year. Mobile telephone and e-mails are not always available to contact anxious parents, so great reliance is placed upon travel advice to warn or reassure them, particularly in the event of any terrorist threat or attack.
	Although we are to have the consultation period, I wish to highlight a number of points for consideration. Before we move on to the issues arising out of terrorist threats, the whole House will be aware of the somewhat less-than-perfect behaviour by young Britons in certain Mediterranean resorts. The understandable reaction of the local communities is to demand rigorous police action. Does the Secretary of State agree that websites should clearly indicate the extent of the draconian action now being undertaken by local police if excessive antisocial behaviour occurs?
	May I encourage those who draw up the FCO country websites to continue to clearly emphasise specific dangers such as road safety, health risks and crime, while highlighting particular cultural sensitivities and any lists of objects that may not be imported or exported?
	Having today looked at the Foreign Office website, I ask the Foreign Secretary to agree that it is crucial that it be made graphically clear daily, on the front page of the travel advice section, which if any countries have had a change in their status recently. There are important insurance implications. Already, terrorist-related events are excluded from nearly all UK travel insurance policies, but given that UK travel insurance policies are also not valid in prescribed countries, the advice should contain much more explicit information, explaining that personal liability will occur in case of, for example, even personal injury when travelling within these countries. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that must be marked clearly on the front page of the FCO travel advice website and in any supporting literature, stating that in these circumstances travel is entirely at one's own risk?
	Has the Foreign Secretary been satisfied in his conversations with the Association of British Travel Agents and the travel industry that travel agents are, in practice, directing their clients to FCO travel advice where appropriate? Is he aware of just how anxious the travel industry is to have the clearest possible directions?
	In the review, will the Foreign Secretary continue to look at the way in which other countries assess their travel advice? Will he work co-operatively with other Governments to ensure that there are no glaring disparities of view about terrorist threats and, where there are, seek to try to find ways to reconcile these differences, which in the past have been highlighted and can cause later recriminations?
	Of course we will work with this review, study it closely and, as necessary, respond further to it. We shall never know how many lives it will save, but we will know all too well the consequences if we get it wrong.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to the document. If we are to ensure that the advice has integrity and authority, it is crucial that it should not become a partisan matter; the tone of his remarks suggests that there is no danger of that. There may be differences of view, which is precisely why I came to the House today.
	I am grateful also for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to our consular and other staff abroad, and to staff in the Foreign Office. There are difficult judgments to be made. Obviously, officials from the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre, the Foreign Office and all Departments offer Ministers advice, but Ministers are responsible for the content of travel advice and are answerable to the House for it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the less-than-perfect behaviour of British teenagers abroad.

Richard Spring: Not only teenagers.

Jack Straw: And not only abroad, in my experience. From recollection, we give a lot of advice about the nature of local law enforcement, but I will check on that.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that the home page of the FCO website should make graphically clear whether the travel advice in respect of an individual country has been changed significantly in the recent past. That is a good idea which I will follow through; I will let him know if it is not possible for some reason. He suggested also that we add a rider about insurance on the home page. There is a limit to what can go on the home page but, in my judgment, of the two, it is more important to highlight the changes rather than to refer to insurance.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the practice in other countries, about which there is a passage in the document. We work closely with other countries, but it is important that we do not get into a situation where we substitute the lowest common denominator of other countries for our judgment. It is inevitable that if there is a terrorist outrage, relatives and friends of the victims will look to see whether it could have been avoided and at what other countries advised. I fully understand that. It is for each Governmentin this case, for each Foreign Secretaryto make their own judgment, to have that judgment made public and to be answerable for it. I am seeking to provide a better and, to a degree, more scientific basis for the judgment to be made.

Stephen Pound: I welcome the advice, but within the fairly broad ambit of the review, will my right hon. Friend consider the circumstances of Kashmir? Enormous improvements have taken place in that beautiful country, which is now far more peaceful; yet the tourists and travellers whom it desperately needs do not visit because of the FCO travel advice. I do not need to remind my right hon. Friend of the immense improvements that have taken place, and of the work of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Musharraf. Will he consider the circumstances of a country that could benefit so much from a recasting of the FCO travel advice?

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and we have no interest in advising against travel except where we think the circumstances and evidence justify it. At the moment, we recommend against all travel to Jammu and Kashmiron the Indian side of the line of controlexcept Ladakh via Manali, or by air to Leh. It is not the whole of the state; it is a substantial part of it. We all want the peace process to continue, therefore I will not say that we will have the advice changed. But I will ask for a further security assessment to be made of the current conditions in Jammu and Kashmir.

Menzies Campbell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the statement and welcome the period of consultation that he announced. I have sympathy with the Foreign Office on the subject of travel advice because, to use a colloquialism, it is damned if it does and damned if it does not. That makes the crucial balance between danger and disruption to which he referred in his statement all the more difficult to strike, not least because the risks to UK citizens may be of an entirely different degree in certain circumstances as compared with the risks to citizens of other countries, even within the EU. Does he agree that in order to strike that balance successfully, we need constant monitoring and informed, sensitive judgment from competent, qualified and experienced staff, not least because of the possible effect on personal insurance provisions that individuals may have taken out, but also because of the possible impact on fragile tourist economies?

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman puts the dilemma facing us acutely and he is right that it is our duty to make these judgments. There has been a significant improvement in the overall assessment of intelligence, which now takes place within JTAC. It will never be perfect, but the quality of assessment is much better and is now regarded as something of a world leader. Of course we have to take into account the risks to UK citizens rather than to others, but we must not slide into the idea suggested by somealthough not by the right hon. and learned Gentlemanthat because we have been prominent in the so-called war against terrorism, we are more likely to be victims. It is very interesting that the German newspapers last Thursday were full of a story that received not a line in British newspapers, but which was of real significance. It was headline news there that the German President Rau had to cancel a state visit to Djibouti in Africa because of a specific threat to him and his entourage from al-Qaeda based terrorists. That led to interesting debate in Germany, which continues, on whether the Germans have been too complacent in believing that because they took a different view from us over Iraq, they have some sort of immunity.
	Let us be clear: as far as those terrorists are concerned, no one has immunity who is not a fully signed-up adherent to their wholly distorted view of the world. Everyone else, including people of the Muslim faith as well as those of other faiths, is an apostate and heretic and, from their point of view, should be a victim.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about constant monitoring. Yes, we carry that out, but we can always improve.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement and the fact that there will be an additional consultation period. Will he comment on current Government policy on consultation with friendly Governments when travel advice is to be altered? I am thinking in particular of Yemen. Although it is working hard in the international community to combat terrorism, travel advice on that country has changed over a period of time, making it difficult for people to visit it or keep up contacts with it. Will he comment on the situation in Yemen in the light of what he has said today?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. Current advice on Yemen advises against all travel except on essential business. I cannot say what new judgment we will come to if it is accepted that we will move to the new criteria proposed in the Command Paper, but if we make that move, I should want the extent to which local law enforcement agencies are willing and able to fight terrorism to be taken into consideration. We already recognise the considerable work done by our friends in the Yemen Government and their agencies.

John Redwood: I welcome the statement and the policy outlined, and I realise what a difficult matter this is. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether Bali, Spain or Turkey were on the list of countries at risk before the terrorist outbreaks there, or will it always be the case in practice that we will react rather than foresee?

Jack Straw: There was general advice in respect of Spain because of ETA terrorism, and the Foreign Office general travel advice contains a page about the threat from international terrorism. On Bali, part of the later examination of events there looked at whether the Foreign Office's travel advice had properly reflected available intelligence, and whether that had been used properly. We were subject to some criticism on that, which I accepted when I made a statement to the House in autumn 2002. The Intelligence and Security Committee made some specific recommendations, which we have followed through, and which are among the reasons for upgrading the system. We continue to work those through.

Edward Garnier: I welcome, as have other Members, the Foreign Secretary's statement and the consultation process that he is about to enter. Will he consider another aspect of travel: advice given to overseas citizens on travel to this country? Many such people seem wholly unaware of our immigration rules, and I hope that our overseas posts can make greater use of local press and television to make quite clear what our rules and regulations are, so that no one is taken by surprise if they happen to be turned back at a port of entry in this country.
	My other point is that if there is to be an order of priority in the security of our citizens overseas, surely the security of our diplomats in overseas posts should come first. They are not travelling abroad voluntarily as tourists, but are there as part of their official duties. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, following events in Istanbul and what I believe was the recent temporary closure of our embassy in Syria, will look after his civil servants overseas as a matter of priority, before worrying about voluntary travellers going overseas from this country.

Jack Straw: First, I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ingenuity of his opening question. Although it was not directly on this point, I have to say that my Indian and Pakistani constituents and their families are well aware of the immigration rules, and that 99 per cent. of them follow those rules and accept the decisions made. Some do not, which is why there have to be effective scrutiny systems, but on the whole, those work wellalthough sometimes, as we know, they do not.
	On the question of the security of posts, I take that extremely seriously. I did so before the appalling atrocity against the British consul general, Roger Short, and his staff in Istanbul on 20 November, and I do so today. A review of security is taking place as a result of the Istanbul bombings, but quite a lot was being done before that. However, I make the point that there is no contradiction between our concern for the security of our staffto whom we have a high-level duty of careand our concern for the safety of British citizens. Both are of great and equal importance, and where there is any change in security arrangements in relation to our staff, we should make those public unless there are good intelligence reasons for not doing so. The public can then judge us not only on the advice that we give them but on what we are doing for the security of our own staff.

Richard Allan: The Foreign Secretary will know that his Department has issued a serious threat warning in respect of Bahrain, where the grand prix is being held this weekend. Many British citizens will have to attend that event, not as tourists but as employees of the successful British motor racing teams. They will naturally be concerned about the implications of the threat for their domestic insurance policies, such as those related to their mortgages. As well as looking at travel insurance, will the Foreign Secretary work with the insurance industry to ensure that there is clear advice to British workers on the relationship between threat warnings and any exclusions from their normal domestic insurance policies?

Jack Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and my answer is yes.

Andrew MacKay: I warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement, not least because of the welcome apparent change of emphasis whereby only very serious threats will now be highlighted to travellers. Can he further confirm that it is in no one's interests for there to be too much, often unnecessary, information given? That leads people to become blas and take absolutely no notice of the advice on his Department's website.

Jack Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. When we receive information about terrorist threats, we will continue to describe that information in synopsis form, and say what we have received, as at present. The change proposed is that we will far less frequently say that we therefore advise against all but essential travel. It is in that respect that the currency has been devalued. People are blas; we had advised against travel to Bali, but I gather that 30,000 British people still chose to go there. We advise against all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia because that is consistent with our current policy, but given that 30,000 of our people live there, what does advising against all but essential travel to Saudi Arabia mean, exactly, for those who live there and have to travel backwards and forwards? That advice is consistent with current arrangements, but it is the House's feeling that it is time those were changed, not least so that the value of the currency can be improved.

Bob Spink: Although this is not at the heart of the statement, I welcome the Government's setting-up of the new aviation health department. Could the FCO website give more details and advice to long-haul travellers on how they can take precautions to avoid deep vein thrombosis? That could and would save livesand if a loved one dies, it really does not matter whether it is from terrorism or from DVT.

Jack Straw: As one who has to take precautions in that departmentI shall not specify whatmy answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.

Tony Baldry: Anyone who has had ministerial responsibility for travel cannot other than support what the Foreign Secretary has said today. One group that he will consult is destination countries. Travel advice is often seen as an issue for bilateral negotiation between destination countries, and they regard travel advice as a form of value judgment on them as countries. Is that not a problem, and can the Foreign Secretary make it clear to every destination country that travel advice is exactly that: advice that is not negotiable as a political bilateral issue, and which is simply designed to advise UK citizens whether, in the Government's judgment, it is safe or otherwise to travel?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The advice is not negotiable, but although advice on the nature of a threat has to be based on our unilateral judgment, our prescriptive warnings not to undertake all but essential travel inevitably also involve a judgment about the state and quality of local law enforcement agencies. It is that factor that embroils us in some rather difficult bilateral arguments. Countries sometimes say, Hang on, you said 'all but essential travel' for us, and then proceed to question the decision in respect of certain other countries. They say, We are co-operating with you more than those countries are, so why are we being picked off in this way? Of course, we are not picking them off, but that is how it is perceived. That is another reason for pulling back from such prescriptive advice, except where it is really needed, and when people will take notice of it.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: May I remind the House that Tuesday's business statement has been superseded by the House of Lords' acceptance of the will of the House of Commons? I am grateful that common sense has prevailed by 30 votes, and I am particularly grateful to those Labour peers who stood so solidly by the twin principles of House of Commons supremacy and greater voter participation through postal voting.
	The business for the week after the Easter recess is as follows:
	Monday 19 AprilConsideration of Lords Amendments to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
	Tuesday 20 AprilSecond Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 21 AprilOpposition Day (9th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 22 AprilA motion to approve a permanent security screen in the Chamber followed by a motion to approve the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on visitor facilities: access to Parliament.
	Friday 23 AprilPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 26 AprilRemaining stages of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill (Lords).
	Tuesday 27 AprilProgress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 28 AprilConclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Thursday 29 AprilIf necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill followed by Opposition half-Day (7th Allotted Day) (Part 2). There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Friday 30 AprilPrivate Member's Bills.

Oliver Heald: Does the Leader of the House recall writing the following in his book Ayes to the Left? It states:
	Once a Bill is introduced it becomes almost a test of Government virility to get it through unscathed. This can produce bad legislation.
	Of course, the difference today was that the Labour Lords turned up, whereas on previous occasions a third of them did not. Indeed, some 70 Labour peers did not attend on Tuesday. Instead of the Leader of the House recommencing his personal vendetta against the other place, would it not be better if he could actually encourage Labour peers to turn up for business?
	Turning to more important matters of business, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he has finally read the Procedure Committee's third report on Sessional Orders, which was printed four months ago? It recommends that the Government take action to remove the long-standing, visually unattractive and noisy demonstration outside the main entrance to the House of Commons, which, as he knows, also has security implications. The matter has been raised with him from all parts of the House, and by Mr. Speaker. Is it not time that something was done about it, and can the Leader of the House give us a progress report?
	We were expecting by now draft Bills on mental health, mental incapacity and the criminal defence service. Where are they and why have we yet to have them?
	On the Government's attitude to Select Committees and the civil service, does the Leader of the House agree with the following, which is also taken from his book:
	The Executive needs to be made more accountable by enhancing the system of Select Committees, giving them . . . greater access to information?
	Has the Leader of the House read early-day motion 760?
	 [That this House expresses its concern that select committees are not able to obtain from the Government the documents and witnesses necessary in order to fulfil their role of scrutinizing the Executive; notes the comments of the honourable Member for Thurrock in the debate on the Hutton Report when he said that Lord Mutton had been able to cross-examine John Scarlet in public, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him, and that they had been refused the drafts of the September dossier but Lord Hutton published them on the worldwide web; and calls on the Leader of the House to institute a major review into the way in which Government and ministers treat select committees and the provisions of the Osmotherly Rules and the Ministerial Code.]
	Is the Leader of the House aware of the privilege inquiry report on the Lord Chancellor, which was published today, and which finds the Lord Chancellor guilty of contempt of Parliament for attempting to punish a civil servant for giving evidence to a Select Committee? What is he going to do about the report's recommendation that the Government take urgent action in respect of Select Committees? Does he agree that the Government are creating something of a climate of fear among civil servants? With that in mind, does he agree, following the resignation of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, and in the light of the huge problem that we face in managing this country's immigration system, that we need a proper, independent inquiry into what has happened? It is simply not satisfactory to ask a civil servant, even one as good as Ken Sutton, to make judgments on the actions of Ministers to whom he reports.
	The Leader of the House will know of today's newspaper reports that the Prime Minister is taking personal control of the immigration service. I recognise that the Government and the Prime Minister will require a little time to formulate plans to deal with the shambles that is our immigration service, but may we have a statement in three weeks timeimmediately after we return from the Easter recesson what the Government are going to do about that mess?

Peter Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the audacity to talk about a mess. When we took office in 1997, we inherited from the then Home Secretaryhe is now Leader of the Oppositionan absolute shambles in respect of asylum procedures. I remind the House that applications are down by 50 per cent., that we have doubled the number of removals, and that the monthly intake is at its lowest for six years. Eighty per cent. of applications get an initial decision within two months, which compares with an average of 20 months under the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary. We removed 17,000 failed asylum seekers last yearthree times as many as were removed when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary. The shambles that we should be talking about is the asylum shambles that we inherited.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes)I am extremely sad about her recent resignationwas responsible for driving forward the very reforms that are coping with the problem. I see no need for a statement, and as for the Prime Minister's involvement, as he made clear in this morning's press conference, he is of course taking a close personal interest.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was kind enough to give my book of some 10 years ago a plug. I remind him that it was written at the height of a Conservative Government, and that it referred to all the bad legislation passed under Conservative Governments in particular. He seems unwilling now to accept the will even of the House of Lords. He and his Back-Bench colleagues are disappointed that the House of Lords has upheld the supremacy of the House of Commons, and given many millions more people the opportunity to vote through postal voting.
	As Lord Carter pointed out in a letter to The Times this morning, if the House of Lords had not acted as it did, there would have been an unprecedented seventh round of ping-pong between the two Houses. He also pointed out, and it is worth quoting:
	Since 1997, 14 Bills have been sent back to the House of Commons more than once. In the 18 years under the Conservatives three Bills were sent back more than onceone every six years under the Conservatives, one every six months under Labour.
	I am glad that common sense has prevailed. We are seeing the Conservatives mobilising their votes in the House of Lords to defeat a Labour majority in the House of Commons. In due course, we will address that problem with a Bill to reform the powers and composition of the House of Lords.
	The hon. Gentleman quite properly pressed me on Sessional Orders, and I can repeat what I have said on successive Thursdays: we will bring the matter back before the House when we are in a position to report on the action that he seeks, which the Speaker has also sought.
	On draft Bills, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acceptit is incontrovertiblethat we have brought more such Bills to the House than was ever done before. That is a practice that I, as Leader of the House, am particularly keen on, because pre-legislative scrutiny results in better legislation. The three Bills that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be brought forward in due course. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee has personally thanked me for giving advance notice of when the Bills are due to reach the relevant Select Committees, so that they can prepare their work programme.
	I was also asked about enhancing the powers of Select Committees. In fact, the Government have enhanced those powers in a variety of ways, providing them with more resources, the Prime Minister making himself accountable to the Liaison Committee and in other respects. As for the Osmotherly rules, to which the hon. Gentleman indirectly referred, we are currently considering them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the Lord Chancellor and gave a very one-sided account of the report from the Standards and Privileges Committee. Let me quote to the HouseI am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear itthe statement made by the Lord Chancellor earlier today about the Standards and Privileges Committee report. He said:
	I fully accept its findings and I unreservedly apologise.
	The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was quick to say that that matter should go before the Committee, which he welcomed. It has reported, and the Lord Chancellor has unreservedly apologised, which I believe the House will welcome.
	The hon. Gentleman made a ludicrous suggestion about Ministers spreading fear among civil servants. Let me tell him that in every Department where I have worked I have had very good relationships with some of the finest officials in the country, and I continue to enjoy that privilege. We ask a lot of our civil servants, who help us to meet the challenges that the country faces, including those on illegal migration and asylum seeking. We are driving forward a record of economic success that is unparalleled in this country, and we are investing record amounts in public services. As I said, we ask a lot of our civil servants: far from their being in fear, they enjoy working for a Government who have a grip, who are in charge and who are driving forward those policies.

David Winnick: Over the last 40 years, legislation has been introduced to deal with racism and incitement to race hatred, but is it not time for Parliament to consider seriously how to deal with extremist groups that are totally unrepresentative of the Muslim community who daily preach hatred and violence, whether it be on the streets or in one or two mosques that they have taken over? If we were able to take such action, would it not help the vast majority of Muslims who are deeply embarrassed by those people who, as I say, are in no way representative of the law-abiding Muslim community in our country, which loathes terrorism no less than we do?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which will be echoed almost unanimously in the Muslim community, including by its leaders. I was particularly pleased that the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Iqbal Sacranie, whom I know and enormously respect, sent a letter to colleagues throughout the country, making it absolutely clear that extremists and fanatics spoke not for the Muslim community but only for themselves. Indeed, he quoted a section from the Koran to show that the extremists were against its edicts and teachings. We greatly welcome such leadership, and we will continue to work with him and his colleagues to deal with the problem.

Paul Tyler: Reverting to immigration and asylum, will the Leader of the House, on behalf of his Cabinet colleagues, think carefully during the recess about the way in which the system is being reviewed? Frankly, there is a collapse of confidence in the integrity and credibility of the system, which will not be improved by today's events. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect seriously on the need for an independent, rather than internal, inquiry into the process. It should be undertaken separately from the Foreign Office and the Home Office so that the attitudes and actions of Ministers can be properly examined. Clearly, the Sutton inquiry cannot achieve that.
	I heard the dignified personal statement made earlier this afternoon, but does the Leader of the House recall that only on Tuesday the Home Secretary asked the House:
	Has the Minister of State done a first-class job? We all know that she has, so the answer to that question is yes, yes, yes. That is why she has our unequivocal backing and will continue to do so.[Official Report, 30 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1444.]
	On the same day, the Prime Minister's spokesman made the same point. Does the Leader of the House recall that, when Mrs. Thatcher gave her unassailable support as Prime Minister to Nigel Lawson, he was gone within days? Should not Ministers be warned that Downing street confidence is a very dangerous curse?
	Turning to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which has been published today, will the Leader of the House examine two important questions? First, there are recommendations about the way in which civil servants treat the Select Committees of the House. Paragraph 34 states:
	One thing this inquiry has revealed beyond doubt is the inadequacy of the guidance on parliamentary privilege currently issued by departments, both for use by Non-Departmental Public Bodies, and for internal departmental use.
	What action is being taken on that?
	We have just heard that the Lord Chancellor personally apologised, and we accept that, but I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that the Committee report says unequivocally:
	We therefore conclude, on the basis of the facts admitted in evidence, that, even in the absence of intent, the issuing of the letter of 11 December
	the letter from the Lord Chancellor
	and enclosures constituted a contempt.
	Does the Leader of the House accept that being in contempt of the House and its Committees is a very serious matter? We need an urgent debate on it.

Peter Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has puffed himself up in this aggressive way, which is not typical of him. The report also made it clear that there was no intent on the part of the Lord Chancellor, who has unreservedly apologised. I would have thought that that met the requests of the Standards and Privileges Committee. Paragraph 34 of the report states:
	We are glad that the Government appears to have recognised this, and is taking steps to remedy this deficiency.
	In other words, the Committee recognised the fact that the Government had acknowledged the problem and were taking steps to remedy it.
	On the asylum and immigration system, I have to say that although the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is a respected parliamentarian whose work I value, he is getting into very bad company with the Conservatives in seeking to make cheap points about a Minister who has accepted that she unwittingly gave a misleading impression and has acted honourably in resigning. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. If I understood him correctlyhe will tell me if I am wronghe said that this afternoon's statement has not improved the position. I would have thought that, in the sense of showing high standards of honesty and integrity in public life, my right hon. Friend's statement has improved the position. As the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my right hon. Friend acted decisively to cut down the number of asylum applications and doubled the number of removals. I would have thought that that would be welcomed throughout the House, including by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.

Mike Gapes: Can we have an early debate on the implications of the interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1998 by public bodies, particularly by NHS trusts? My own local trust wrote to me to say that I needed to acquire a consent form from elderly people in hospital or anyone who telephones my office before I could make any representations on their behalf. Is that not an infringement of the rights of Members, and is it not clear that some public bodies are beginning to interpret the Data Protection Act in a way that undermines our right to represent our constituents and their families?

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Peter Hain: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter and, given the reaction of Members on both sides of the House, he has clearly touched on a pertinent point. I remind the House that in 2002, on his behalf and on behalf of all Members, the Government amended the Data Protection Act by an order that came into force on 17 December, which removes the Act's restrictions on the disclosure of sensitive data to Members of Parliament and other elected representatives when they are dealing with constituents' cases.
	The Department of Health and the health service are in a slightly different position, as information held by hospitals about the health of individuals is likely to be held in confidence and disclosure to a third party is governed by the common law of confidence. However, the crucial point for my hon. Friend is that the Department of Health has issued guidance for NHS organisations, including trusts, that they should accept an MP's word, when an MP clearly states that he or she has the patient's consent. In that case, it seems to me that the hospital or trust involved should have accepted my hon. Friend's word that he had the patient's consent, as that is in line with the guidance issued by the Department of Health, so he should go back to the trust with that reminder.

John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the immigration supremonamely, the Prime Minister, who is taking a close interest in immigration matterswill use the recess to study the impact of the Hillingdon judgment, to which I have referred the Leader of the House on other occasions? Is he aware that reimbursing boroughs such as Hillingdon, which have a port of entry, involves two Departmentsthe Home Office and the Department for Education and Skillsand that they do not always integrate or co-ordinate their reimbursement programmes and are tardy in bringing them forward? In future, the process should be accepted as a national responsibility, especially with regard to unaccompanied young people, as assistance is given to adults who are over 18 and not only to unaccompanied children. That is a major matter, and the Prime Minister ought to consider it.

Peter Hain: The Home Secretary and, no doubt, the Prime Minister will have noted the hon. Gentleman's points. I remind him, however, that, in the past year alone, we recruited 4,000 extra staff to deal with the problems of asylum and illegal migration, which compares with planned Conservative cuts in 1997 of 1,200. Furthermore, if the shadow Chancellor's planned cuts of 1 billion were implemented in the Home Office budget, the hon. Gentleman's problems would get much worse and the problems of dealing with asylum and illegal migration would escalate to an uncontrollable extent. We are getting a grip on the issue, but Conservative policies would make that impossible.

Andrew Love: After the recess, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Barker report on housing supply? Over the past few years, Britain has experienced not only the highest house price inflation on record but the lowest amount of housebuilding, and the report addresses that. The issues affect everyone in the country, whether they are the cost of buying their own home, which is unaffordable for many people, or the unacceptable level of homelessness. A debate would also give us an opportunity to expose some of the Opposition nimbyism, when they say that they support the Barker report but not in their backyard. There are many reasons for my right hon. Friend to hold such a debate, and it would give Parliament an opportunity to join in the consultation on the Barker review.

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's points. The issue is important, and that is why the Government acted in advance to commission the Barker review, which provides many of the solutions to the problem. I am sure that all Members find, like me, that the problem especially affects first-time buyers who find it extremely difficult to get on to the housing ladder. However, at least they have the confidence of very low mortgage rates and the certainty that, under the economic stability that the Government have locked in, interest rates will remain low. Mortgages will thus remain low and people can plan ahead in security for a future in which they can own their own homes.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House failed to answerI think, inadvertentlythe question put by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about the Procedure Committee report on Sessional Orders and resolutions. Can he tell us when the Government intend to reply? Similarly, can he give us an answer about the debate on debate procedures, private Members' Bills and the role of the Speaker? Because the Leader of the House and I have a very good relationship, may I ask him to have a word with his diary secretary to find an earlier date than the one he has offered for his appearance before the Procedure Committee in respect of our inquiry into programming? It will be inconvenient to delay the work of the Committee for as long as the right hon. Gentleman wishes to do. Will he be obliging towards me todaythe day after my birthday?

Andrew Love: Happy Birthday!

Peter Hain: Happy birthday, indeed, to an esteemed Back Bencher, to whom I always seek to be obliging. I remind others involved in such decisions that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) keeps harrying me on Thursdays about reporting to the House on the Procedure Committee inquiry as soon as possible and that they should note that, but I shall respond as soon as I can. I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman keeps bobbing up and down to remind me of that. I cannot talk about my diary across the Floor of the House, but I shall come to the Committee as soon as I can. Obviously, I do not want to detain its deliberations, but I am not aware of the options available to me in what is a busy diary.
	May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the Committee's report on the sitting hours questionnaire? It has been extremely valuable and informative in my taking forward decisions that might enjoy consensual support in the House.

Helen Jones: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on doorstep selling techniques, especially the activities of firms that prey on elderly people by ringing them up and claiming to have connections with the police and local councils, prior to visiting them to sell them expensive and often useless alarm systems? Can we find time to debate how we might protect elderly and vulnerable people from such high-pressure and iniquitous sales techniques, and how we might also encourage the police to ensure that people are given proper security advice, rather than leaving them to the activities of those fly-by-night firms?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter, and I and the House are grateful to her for bringing it to our urgent attention. The practice is iniquitous, and the police, in particular, will want to take her advice and act with great speed to clamp down on it. I know that the police and the Home Office will study her intervention closelyafter Hansard is printed, that isand I am grateful to her.
	Furthermore, it is imperative that we keep up funding for the Home Office, that we keep increasing itplanned increases are in the pipelineand that we do not cut it by 1 billion as is planned under the alternative Government of the Conservatives.

Alex Salmond: May we have a debate to clarify what should constitute a matter for ministerial resignation? If it has become a resignation matter inadvertently to mislead Parliament and the people over the Home Office and immigration, why is it not a resignation matter inadvertently to mislead Parliament and the people over weapons of mass destruction and Iraq?

Peter Hain: Quite simply because there was no misleading involved on the question of Iraq.

Tony Lloyd: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the importance of the charity commissioners, who are the custodians of our charities and ensure that charities are accountable? May we have a debate on the matter, owing to the failure of the Charity Commission to take proper responsibility for the Indian senior citizens centre in my constituency and, perhaps even more important, its failure to respond, through the chief charity commissioner, to me as the Member of Parliament? That lapse in standards is not acceptable and the charity commissioners need a bit of a shot up the

Eric Forth: Elbow?

Tony Lloyd: A shot in the arm.

Peter Hain: It is no longer April fool's day so I shall take very much to heart my hon. Friend's point about a shot in the arm. In fact, he makes an important point. The Charity Commission and anybody connected to it must respond to the inquiries of Members of Parliament and to their complaints and protests. The Home Secretary and in due course, I am sure, the Charity Commission will note the points that he made.

Eric Forth: When will civil servants get statutory protection from Ministers? We recently had the now-departed Minister for Citizenship and Immigration disgracefully dumping on her civil servants. The Lord Chancellor has at least had the grace to apologise, as a result of the Standards and Privileges Committee report, but it leaves the issue unresolved. How long will it take the Government to provide their civil servants with protection?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a Government who became a byword for incompetence and sleaze. As for the relationship with civil servants, when we came to office they were delighted to find a Government full of vision, full of grip and full of plans, instead of the incompetent Administration who were kicked out in 1997.

David Taylor: To endorse the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), will the Leader of the House find time for an inquiry into the quality of management in some of our acute hospitals? Mr. Terence Hopeone of my constituents and a consultant neurosurgeon at the Queen's Medical Centre University Hospital trust in Nottinghamwas suspended two weeks ago because of a hotly denied, most trivial incident that related to a privatised restaurant in the complex. He was reinstated a week later, although by then clinics had been cancelled, operations had been postponed and a lot of lives had been jeopardised. Have we really lost the public service ethos to the extent that it would appear? Can we not have a detailed examination of the background to such incidents so that lessons can be learned for the delivery of high quality clinical care in the NHS, not the pursuit of spreadsheet-type management?

Peter Hain: I suppose that that counts as the crouton affair. If the facts are as reported and as my hon. Friend underlines, it is, frankly, a ludicrous episode and he is right to bring it to the attention of the House. I am sure that Health Ministers will have noted very carefully what he said.

Peter Lilley: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate as soon as possible on the new Labour doctrine of ministerial irresponsibility, under which Ministers deny responsibility for their own Department's actions, plead ignorance, which should be culpable, blame officials, which is despicable, and attempt to silence whistleblowers, which is intolerable? The latest example of that involves the Lord Chancellor, who was found guilty of contempt of the House. An apology is not enough because the Committee's report says that
	a subsequent apology is not, however, sufficient to undo the original damage.
	We now have a Lord Chancellor who wants to abandon his title but hang on to the perks of his office; we have a Solicitor-General who is in contempt of court but wants to hold on to her office; and we have a Home Secretary who has used his hapless Minister of State as a human shield in order to deny responsibility for the biggest collapse of immigration policy that this country has ever known. When can we have a debate on Ministers taking responsibility for their actions and inactions?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister in a Government who consistently failed to take responsibility for their own actions and were bedevilled with incompetence and sleaze. I am amazed that he has come here a few hours[Interruption.] A member of the Cabinet went to prison as a result of that, so I should have thought that he would have a little less aggression in raising such issues[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying to the questions.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order in the House, by association, to accuse people of dishonour or impropriety?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Sometimes, in the heat of discussion that takes place in the Chamber, such an inference may be taken, but I did not read that into the reply from the Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: I was making no such accusation about the right hon. Gentleman; I was referring to what he has said. A Minister in our Government has had the integrity to come before the House, accept responsibility for unwittingly giving a misleading impression, and resignbut he gets up and attacks her and says that that somehow indicates a different picture, when we know the Conservative Government's record. He served as a Cabinet Minister in that Government. That was the point that I was making.
	No further action was required of the Lord Chancellor in respect of the Standards and Privileges Committee reporta recommendation about which the right hon. Gentleman failed to remind the Houseand his unreserved apology draws a line under that matter.

Barry Gardiner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proliferation of commercial self-storage warehouses across London? Does he understand the relationship between those people who are put into temporary accommodation or made homeless and the fact that their goods and property are then stored at public expense? Is he as outraged as I am by a story that was related to me by a constituent who came to my constituency surgery two weeks ago? She told me that a sofa that she purchased new for less than 800 has been stored at a cost of more than 10,000, at public expense. Does he not believe, as I do, that the spending of public money in that way should be investigated?

Peter Hain: I must say that my hon. Friend has brought to my attention and to that of the House an episode and a practice of which I had no knowledge. I am sure that the relevant Ministers will want to take extremely close note of what he has said and to take the necessary actionif it is in their power to take such action, given that those commercial self-storage warehouses are presumably private operations. Clearly, public money should not be wasted to the extent that he implies.

Sue Doughty: Is the Leader of the House aware of the problems associated with Mayfloweran automotive engineering companygoing into administration, which has put at risk the entire British bus building industry? Owing to the dubious nature of Mayflower's management, workers' pensions have been put at risk. Will the Leader of the House please ask his colleagues to introduce proposals to deal with the pensions of employees in that situation and arrange a wider debate on the future of the bus building industry in this country?

Peter Hain: I did read reports to that effect, and they are very disturbing indeed. There are echoes of the experience that I have had in Wales with the ASW workers who lost their pensions when the company went into liquidation. In fact, they were robbed of their pensions. That is precisely why we plan to pass pensions legislation to give proper protection to workers so that they do not suffer from such scandals in the future.

Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of whether the Government intend to bring forward the report on the coal health compensation scheme, application for which ended yesterday? In particular, will they consider the matters raised in early-day motion 818 about legal charges?
	[That this House expresses its continued concerns about solicitors who charge clients in addition to the costs paid by the Department of Trade and Industry; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all solicitors sign an undertaking guaranteeing that they will not levy any charges from the compensation paid to miners, former miners or their families in respect of coal health claims, and that the Department of Trade and Industry does not make any payments to solicitors until such an undertaking has been signed.]
	There are suspicions that solicitors have levied extra charges. If the Government consider such matters, will they look at the situation in Scotland? Although the Law Society of Scotland says that there is no double charging in Scotland, we find that there are a number of so-called arrangement companiesone of which is called IDIC and is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Owensthat are putting adverts in the paper. Very elderly people then phone them up, and all they do is pass them on to a solicitorthat seems to me to be collusionwho sends them a form to sign over 10 per cent. of their claim to the arrangement company. I have found a solicitor who does that and I want the Government to look at it very seriously

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going on rather long.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend raises a very serious matter. We have many examplesI have had to look into some in Walesof claims farmers advertising and getting sometimes vulnerable elderly people or widows to make claims that the claims farmers are unable to handle. The claims are simply posted to a solicitor, and the claims farmers then charge those people. In some cases, they charge thousands of pounds. The Government's compensation scheme, which has been responsible for payments of well over 1 billionin fact, I think that the figure is nearing 2 billion nationwidemakes it expressly clear that solicitors and other legal costs will be paid for under the scheme and rules out any charges on former miners and sick miners who have lung disease or vibration white finger, or their families. They are not allowed to be charged under the terms of the scheme. That iniquitous practice by claims farmers must end and, indeed, the Government are looking into it.

Julian Lewis: In endorsing what the Leader of the House said about the importance of the letter from Iqbal Sacranie to the imams urging respect for law and order and peace and security in this country, may we have a statement soon from the Home Secretary about the future role of the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism?
	It is not sufficiently appreciated that the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism is one and the same as the Minister with responsibility for immigration. Given the difficultiesI put it no higher than thatthat attend immigration issues at present, is it not time now for the Government finally to recognise that we need a separate Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism, as we on the Opposition Benches have argued all along?

Peter Hain: First, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's consistent work in fighting racism. I very much agree with him about Iqbal Sacranie. As for counter-terrorism, I know from personal experience that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team have that firmly in their sights. Indeed, my right hon. Friend is involved almost daily in counter-terrorism work. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Cabinet Minister with responsibility for fighting terrorism is on the case on a daily basis and is taking some tough decisions to protect us. I hope that he will have the hon. Gentleman's support when he does that.

Tom Watson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the campaign mounted by thousands of my constituents to have a proper St. George's day celebration? I am pleased to say that it has been taken on board, wisely, by council leader Bill Thomas. Does my right hon. Friend think that the House should celebrate St. George? We have an annual St. David's day debate; could we have an annual St. George's day debate? When my right hon. Friend is answering my question, will he take time to condemn proposals to introduce the single transferable vote for the Welsh Assembly?

Peter Hain: I am happy to say that I disagree with the Richard commission's proposal for a single transferable vote. As my hon. Friend knows, I am a long-standing opponent, as I think he is, of proportional representation. I do not think that that policy will go much further than the Richard commission. That will certainly be the case if I have anything to do with it.
	My hon. Friend makes the novel suggestion that there should be St. George's day celebrations. It is an interesting idea. We have a St. David's day debate. I am not aware that we have St. Patrick's day or a St. Andrew's day celebrated or debated in the House. No doubt it is a matter that I shall have to examine closely now that my hon. Friend has raised the issue in such a cordial fashion.

Andrew Turner: Now that the ping-pong is over, could we have a thoughtful and temperate debate about the role of the House of Lords? The other place is now in the shape the Government want and they have no further proposals to change it. What are peers' responsibilities, in particular, for Bills that are not foreshadowed in the Labour party's manifesto and for ensuring that no Government use their majority to gerrymander the electoral system?

Peter Hain: I am up for a temperate and thoughtful debate on any issue. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to carry on in that fashion, he will find me a ready partner. The ping-pong has again revealedI am glad that the House of Lords saw common sense by 30 votes in the endthe need to deal with the powers and procedures of the other place. Its procedures are chaotic and Governments do not have a proper ability to manage business, with the consent of the usual channels. Its powers need to be examined. On this occasion, the House of Lords backed down at the last minute, which was welcome. However, there was consistent defiance of clear votes in this place, principally orchestrated by Conservative peers, who are in a majority over Labour peers, even though Conservative Members are a small minority in this place.
	Far from backing off, we are considering closely future legislation to deal not only with the issue of compensation but with restricting the power of the Lords to defy the will of the Commons. The role of the Lords is to scrutinise and revisenot to veto.

Clive Betts: I welcome the fact that my constituents will be able to have an all-postal ballot in June. It will be good for democracy because it will be good for turnout.
	I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange a debate on the excellent work that is carried out by the youth service. It provides good facilities and engages in worthwhile activities that often divert young people from less worthwhile activities that can lead to serious antisocial behaviour. As part of that debate, could we contrast the future of the youth service under a Government whose policy is to provide extra funds for local government, which can lead to further improvements in youth service delivery, with another scenario where significant cuts in the budgets of local councils will lead to the closure of youth clubs, the sacking of youth workers and a rise in antisocial behaviour?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right that his constituents will have the opportunity, because of the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues, to vote in the comfort of their own homes. As he has said, that is good for democracy because it is good for turnout, whomsoever may benefit from that turnout.
	As for the youth service, my hon. Friend is right that local authority budgets under this Government will continue to rise in accordance with the planned increases in spending. If we were to see a 2.5 billion cut in local government budgets, as the plans of the shadow Chancellor foresee, we would have a decimation of services that are provided for the youth of this country, and an increase in antisocial behaviour would follow as a result.

Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the rebuilding of Iraq so that, first, we can congratulate our forces on their professionalism, courage and moderation in the work that they do in that country, and secondly, have regard to the money under the oil-for-food programme and the development fundwhich is now well over 3 billionand ensure that it is released as early as possible so that the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, the Turkamens and the other ethnic groups can use the money to start building hospitals and schools in Iraq?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman brings a voice of common sense to the Chamber on these matters, which I welcome. Our soldiers and others are doing a fantastic job in rebuilding Iraq. As the survey of Iraqis recently showed, that is getting the support of the population in overwhelming numbers. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his points with even greater eloquence when there is a debate on Wednesday 21 April in Westminster Hall.

Llew Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember that at the time of the referendum for a Welsh Assembly we were told that Wales was run by quangos. To rectify that wrong, we first had to vote for a Welsh Assembly, and then give it the powers to make a bonfire of the quangos. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are now even more quangos in Wales than there were when the Assembly was first established. They are more powerful today than when the Assembly was first established.
	My right hon. Friend will also be aware that yesterday the Richard commission reported its conclusions. Not surprisingly, it merely repeated the words of its master, Rhodri Morgan, and demanded more powers for the Welsh Assembly. Some of us believe that before pushing for more powers, it should use the powers that it already has. Let us have a debate on the report of the Richard commission, please.

Peter Hain: I would be quite happy to have a debate on the Richard report. As for a bonfire of quangos, my hon. Friend will know that a number of quangos were taken under the auspices of the Assembly, where they could be better held accountable. A number of other non-departmental organisations have been established to carry out new functions, which has been the practice across Britain.
	As for the Richard commission's report, I look forward to detailed consultations with my hon. Friend and other Back-Bench colleagues of all parties, with Cabinet colleagues and also with members of the Welsh Assembly Cabinet to ascertain whether there is a basis for moving forward. I do not think that the model that is outlined to its full extent in the Richard commission's report really provides that basis. If there were to be a Scottish Parliament option, there would have to be a referendum. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that. I think that the number of Members of Parliament needs to stay the same in Wales. I think also that the electoral system that has been operating for the Welsh Assembly is deeply flaweda point that was recognised by the Richard commission.

Andrew MacKay: As a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, may I put it to the Leader of the House that he has singularly failed to answer questions properly put by my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) concerning our report, which was published earlier this morning, entitled Privilege: Protection of a Witness?
	As the Leader of the House quoted partially from paragraph 34, may I complete the quote? We said:
	We urge the Government to treat this as a matter of urgency. The House should be consulted on the terms of any proposed guidance.
	May I have assurances that when the Government finally prepare proper guidance on privilege, not just to Ministers but to all public servants, we will be consulted and there will be a full debate here in the House?

Peter Hain: I shall certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's request in mind. It is a new report, out today, and we will study it carefully. We have welcomed the Committee's conclusion that Ministers had regard only to their policy objective of giving CAFCASS a fresh start as soon as possible, and we fully accept the findings. There is no dubiety about that. We fully accept the findings and the Lord Chancellor has unreservedly apologised.

John Redwood: May we have an early debate on why, with so much money voted by the House for health, district general hospitals like mine are short of money, short of management freedom and short of capacity to deal with all the demands being placed upon them?

Peter Hain: I do not know about the individual situation in the right hon. Gentleman's hospital, but I assume that he supports a policy advocated by those on his Front Bench that will result in 2 billion being taken out ofrobbed fromthe national health service, to go down the road and follow patientswho can probably afford to have private operations anywayunder the Conservatives infamous patients passport scheme. So I cannot see how the predicament that he describes locally will be improved by the Conservatives; indeed, it will be made worse. We are consistently putting in more and more resources, which are locked in for many years to come.

Tony Baldry: Is the Leader of the House up for a thoughtful and temperate debate on the investigative powers of Select Committees? Of course everyone welcomes the Prime Minister coming before the Liaison Committee twice a year and extra staff for Select Committees, but as the recent experience of the Foreign Affairs Committee demonstrated, it is almost impossible to get Ministers to answer questions that they do not want to answer or to provide information that they do not want to give. It is almost a quarter of a century since departmental Select Committees came into being. Would not this be a good time for the Leader of the House and the Liaison Committee to have a discussion about how the investigative ability of departmental Select Committees could be improved?

John Prescott: Get decent questions.

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend reminds us that we need decent questions. The hon. Gentleman's point is a fair one, and of course I am up for a thoughtful exchange with him and fellow Select Committee Chairs about the powers of investigation and accountability of Select Committees.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004

Point of Order

Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter that is causing me some problems as a Member of Parliament. Over the past 11 years, when I have written to the chief executive of my local council I have had a reply from her or the chief officer. Since the Scottish nationalist party gained minority control of the council, Mr. David Alexander, the SNP council leader, has been replying to my lettershe has done so on three occasions. I have tried to persuade him that that is not his role. I can find nothing in the council minutes to say that he has that authority. I seek your advice on how I can deal with the matter. Surely it is breach of privilege that he intercepts my letters or deals with them and does not let the council take its proper course or let the chief executive reply.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it is not a matter that the Chair of the House can deal with; it is a matter for the local authority concerned.

Easter Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Ian Lucas: It is a pleasure to address the House with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, as some of the matters that I shall raise relate to an area that you know well in north-east Wales, as you come from the constituency next door to mine. In a week in which there has been some discussion of the report from Lord Richardknown commonly as the Richard commission reportI shall take the opportunity to raise matters that are of concern not just in Wales, but in the House about the responsibilities of Members of the House and the way in which the United Kingdom is governed.
	Devolution has had a huge and, in my view, beneficial effect on Wales. As a native of north-east England, when I first moved to Wrexham way back in 1986, it was difficult at times to know that one was in Wales. I moved just across the border seven years later

Llew Smith: My hon. Friend says that the Welsh Assembly and devolution have had a beneficial effect on Wales. Does he believe that that applies to the health service in Wales?

Ian Lucas: There are problems in the health service in Wales, which are familiar. They are deep-seated and reflect the poorer state of health of people in Wales, which is of long-standing. The problems in the health service in Wales predate devolution. The structures for dealing with the problems of the health service in Wales differ from the structures in England. One of the benefits of devolution is that we have different systems operating in England and Wales, but where there are examples of better systems working more successfully in England, we must not be afraid of copying them in Wales.
	I wanted to reflect on the changes that devolution has made in Wales. There was a surge in the national identity of Wales following the introduction of devolutionan expression of identity that added hugely to the positive feel in the country. It has influenced my views on regional devolution in England. I am from north-east England, which has a strong regional identity that would be greatly complemented by the introduction of a regional assembly. I hope that it will be one of the first areas to have its own assembly following the vote later this year.
	Devolution has brought material benefits. It has corresponded with a huge decline in unemployment in my constituency, which is well under 3 per cent. now, compared with a high of 20 per cent. way back in 1983. Unemployment in my constituency has halved since 1997. Devolution and the work of organisations such as the Welsh Development Agency in promoting Wales are an effective way of bringing investment to Wales. I recall an advertisement that I saw on a British Airways flight recently that promoted Wales as a good place for investment and the identity of Wales. That was reflected in my constituency by Sharp Manufacturing announcing only last year that its European base for the production of photovoltaic cells for the European market was to be in Wrexham, in competition with possible sites in Spain, Germany and France. Material benefits have resulted from devolution.
	One complication that may be peculiar to my area, the north-east of Wales, is the effect of devolution on the delivery of public services to my constituents. That is the topic on which I shall concentrate. Wales has distinct regions, one of which is north-east Wales, which has a peculiarly close connection with north-west England. The example that I often cite is the Welsh edition of the Daily Post, which is read throughout north Wales and whose back pages carry news about Liverpool, Everton and Manchester United, matters of some interest to my constituents. Meanwhile, The Western Mail, which describes itself as the national newspaper for Wales but is rarely read in my constituency other than by politicians, concentrates on rugby on its back pages, which is of less interest in my constituency than perhaps it is in south Wales. That reflects the different perspectives of my constituents.
	Service delivery in my area perhaps reflects the close links between north-east Wales and north-west England. Telephone exchanges in England serve my constituents in Wrexham, some of my constituents attend school in England and many students from my area attend universities throughout the United Kingdom. Many of the specialist medical services that are delivered to my constituents are delivered from England and include vital services such as children's services, cancer services and orthopaedic services. Doctors who work in my constituency are commonly employed on joint contracts with hospitals in England.
	I raise these issues in this House and with Ministers from the National Assembly for Wales, but the complications that can be caused by that situation are not always fully appreciated. As a result of devolution, some of my constituents sit in a hospital waiting room next to patients from England to see the same doctor for the same condition, but are told that they must wait longer for treatment than if they were from England. It is equally true that I pay less for prescriptions than my colleagues from England and that patients from Wales will pay nothing for prescriptions by 2007.
	The Government do not fully appreciate the position on the ground, and that was certainly reflected by my experience of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, which introduced foundation hospitals in England, while the National Assembly for Wales decided that it did not wish to introduce them in Wales. But it was not fully appreciated at the time in either London or Cardiff that one English hospital, the Countess of Chester hospital, which was in the first wave of hospitals to apply for foundation trust status, which it has since secured, serves not only patients in Cheshire and across north-west England, but my constituents in Wrexham and Flintshire. As patients are entitled to be represented on the board of foundation hospitals, one would expect patients from Wrexham and Flintshire to be so represented, but the Bill, as originally drafted, allowed only patients from England to be represented.
	That was clearly wrong, so I worked with my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) to secure an amendment to the Bill to allow patients from Wales to be represented on the board of foundation hospitals. To their credit, the Westminster Government and the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff agreed to the amendment and the Act now protects the interests of patients from Wales.
	That example is important because it reflects the role of MPs from Wales in this House, but it also shows that neither the Welsh Assembly nor Westminster fully understood how services were being delivered in north-east Wales. For Westminster and for Cardiff, England and Wales were entirely distinct and could be dealt with entirely separately, but that is not the reality.
	In my pragmatic view, politics is about dealing with reality. In that case, neither Government understood that health services in north-east Wales are delivered from England and Wales and cannot be disentangled, and that is true of England and Wales generally. They are distinct countries, but irrevocably linked.
	The strength of the current devolution settlement is that it reflects that reality. Devolution works best when it reflects the position on the ground, and it works worst when it seeks to foster difference for its own sake. Only yesterday, in the debate on the Higher Education Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) raised the effect of that Bill on Wales. There are still substantial difficulties in the way in which the Bill will affect higher education for my constituents.
	In my constituency, the North East Wales institute of higher education, an excellent institution that works hard to attract students from poorer backgrounds, takes around 60 per cent. of its students from Wales and 40 per cent. from England. From 2006, when the Bill becomes law, that institution will not be able to charge students top-up fees, unlike higher education institutions in England. The result will be twofold. First, it will be necessary for the National Assembly to make up the shortfall in income for the cohort of students commencing in 2006 for, I believe, a full three years. Secondly, it will be much cheaper for English students to study in Wales than in England because they will not pay top-up fees in Wales. As in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act, that policy is not a real and practical one reflecting the long-established and important freedom of students to study wherever they wish in the UK.
	Because I want the devolution settlement to work, I want the Assembly in Cardiff and the Westminster Parliament to work closer together. There needs to be input from Westminster because policy in Wales is affected by what happens in England. The Higher Education Bill is a classic example of that. But there also needs to be input from Cardiff bay, because education policy needs to be integrated into the more general thrust of policy in Wales. There are very different developments in education in the secondary sector in Wales, including the Welsh baccalaureate, which reflect the different make-up and needs of the Welsh economy and some of the past deficiencies of secondary education in Wales.
	In an effort to try to develop that integration further, for the past two years I have been suggesting that Westminster Members of Parliament and Assembly Members need to work together on joint committees to consider draft legislation that affects Wales. I welcome the views of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the matter, and the work that it has already done to take the proposal forward. I understand that the Presiding Officer in the National Assembly is considering the next stage.
	If the Higher Education Bill and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act had been considered at an early stage in draft by such a joint committee, some of the problems that still exist in the legislation would have been avoided. I spoke in a debate a few weeks ago on the benefits of draft legislation, to which my good hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House responded, and those benefits are especially evident in helping the devolution settlement to work better. The current settlement works very well between the Executive in Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government, and the Executive here, the office of the Secretary of State for Wales, but it should be improved by developing better relations between Assembly Members and Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
	The further separation of England and Wales would not help the operation of the devolution settlement, but it would hinder the delivery of services, choice and efficiency. The strongest argument for giving primary legislative powers to the Assembly would be if the Assembly wanted to do a particular thing, but could not do it without them. I still await an explanation of the particular policy that the Assembly wishes to deliver but cannot because of the current settlement. I am also yet to hear an example of a service that the National Assembly fails to deliver well because of Westminster's input. On the contrary, services are delivered better when the working relationship between Westminster and Cardiff bay is close.
	Some say that the current constitutional settlement uniquely disadvantages Wales, but I see no evidence for that. It provides huge benefits for Wales, promotes Wales in a way in which it has never been promoted before and enables policy to be devised and implemented much closer to the people of Wales. The Assembly can therefore be much more responsive than Westminster, but the current settlement also reflects Wales's close links to England, which allows services to be delivered efficiently. I therefore conclude that Wales is uniquely placed within the UK, and that that is to its advantage.
	One of the most difficult relationships to manage in any non-unitary state is that between central Government and nations or regions. It can lead to paralysis in Governmentin Germany and Spain, for example, there is frustration that the Government cannot bring about change because of inertia. In contrast, the settlement under the Government of Wales Act 1998 is remarkably flexible. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales which functions have been transferred to the National Assembly since 1998, and his written answer states:
	The functions are too numerous to list.[Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 825W.]
	Where it has been shown that functions are delivered better if they are devolved, there has been no difficulty in transferring them.
	It is time to end the lazy thinking on the Assembly's powers. If there is a case for the transfer of further powers, let it be argued. If there is a case for the Assembly having primary legislative power, let us hear a positive argument saying why it should happen and what the advantages would be for the people of Wales and Wrexham. Let those who suggest that it would be better for the people of Wrexham if further separation between England and Wales took place put their case openly. Let us not have the lazy argument that the Assembly should have primary legislative powers because the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have them. Those institutions are in entirely different positions, and have different legal systems and separate statute books. A system appropriate to Scotland may not be appropriate to Wales.
	If it is said that the current settlement is failing and needs to be changed, let the people of Wales be asked about the matter. The White Paper, The Government's Proposals for a Welsh Assembly, which was published in 1997, clearly states:
	Wales will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Wales and England will continue to share a common legal system and Parliament will continue to pass new legislation for Wales.
	The 1997 referendum granted that mandate, and if new laws for Wales are no longer to be made by Parliament, the people of Wales must be consulted in a referendum.
	Devolution is a success story, and it can be made more successful by Cardiff bay and Westminster working more closely together. What threatens its success is the desire of some to separate that which is joined and to do so without the consent of the people of Wales. If devolution is to retain the confidence of the people of Wales, such a situation must be avoided at all costs.

Paul Tyler: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) in that I, too, represent border countryin my case, the border is between Celtic Cornwall and England, and I agree that problems arise.
	This afternoon, I want to raise issues that will concern all hon. Members, rather than raising parochial issues. For some years now, as a member of the Royal British Legion Gulf war group, I have raised concerns on behalf of service families in a series of debates in this House. A number of my immediate family have been regulars in the armed forces, but I must say that I have only recently become aware of the extraordinary disparity between, on the one hand, the commitment of those who serve us, and their families, and, on the other, the often complacent and cavalier attitude of the Ministry of Defence, which has been particularly apparent since the Gulf war of 1991. The continuing serious health problems suffered by so many veterans of that conflict are still a matter of concern, and all too often the Ministry's attitude seems to have carried over into the treatment of those who have served in Iraq in the past 12 months.
	We saw another example of that just a few days ago, when a research report identifying a much higher than average number of birth defects and stillborn babies among those service families was published. The Ministry rushed out a denial of the connection even before the actual results had been reported to Parliamentmethinks it does protest too much.
	My main concern, however, is for the families who lost loved ones in the most recent conflict. Just 12 months after the first casualties in the Iraq invasion, there are still far too many unanswered questions. In the Christmas recess debate, I set out the full detail of the extraordinary and deplorable way in which the tragic death of Sergeant Steven Roberts, from Wadebridge in my constituency, has been investigated.
	Sergeant Steven Roberts was the first British fatality in Iraq, on 25 March 2003. At the time of the Christmas recess debate, nearly nine months after he was killed, his widow and family had received hardly any official and authenticated information about the circumstances. However, drawing together the threads, I was able to make these points in that debate: first, Sergeant Roberts had been issued with enhanced combat body armourso-called ECBAbut it had been taken away from him; secondly, had he still been wearing ECBA, his life would have been saved; thirdly, according to the National Audit Office report on equipment supply failures, 200,000 items of ECBA disappeared between 1999 and 2003, resulting in shortages in theatre in Iraq; fourthly, in his confrontation with Iraqi dissidents, Sergeant Roberts' pistol seems to have misfired, but it was reissued and not checked after his death; finally, Sergeant Roberts's family had been given the clear impression immediately after his loss that the fatal shot was fired by a colleague seeking to defend him in a case of friendly fire, which is an artificial and unhelpful phrase.
	We all know only too well that terrible mistakes can occur in the confusion of war. Troops know that they risk injury and even death in any hostilities, but that is not the issue. What is in question is whether the Ministry fulfils even its most basic responsibilities to those who serve their country in the armed forces and their familiesmonths of inadequate information, inadequately communicated, is a pathetic response to that self-sacrifice.
	At the close of the Christmas recess debate, the Minister, who is present today, assured me that those concerns would be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence, who would meet me, Mrs. Samantha Roberts and other members of Steven Roberts's family. That meeting took place on 19 January, and the Secretary of State retreated from his previous assurances about equipment supply. The House will recall that on 14 May 2003 he told the Defence Committee that there was no evidence of serious shortages:
	There may have been the odd person who did not get the right sized pair of boots. There may have been the odd soldier who one day did not get his lunchtime ration pack. There may have been the odd soldier who did not like his ready-to-eat meal . . . There was sufficient clothing and protective equipment in theatre to deal with a force of this size.
	Only five weeks later, Major-General Robin Brims, the UK land component commander, told the same Committee:
	I was aware that we did not have the body armourwe did not think we had the body armourwhere we wanted it, in all cases, so we did a major redistribution and it is very hard to do a major redistribution . . . while actually conducting an operation.
	At our meeting in January with the Secretary of State, I asked him to explain that extraordinary discrepancy in the evidence given to the Committee, but answer came there none. This is not a trivial issue, as I am sure hon. Members recognise. In the case of Sergeant Roberts, it was literally a matter of life and death. It was at that point in our meeting that Samantha Roberts asked the Secretary of State who carried the responsibility for these failuresif it was not the Secretary of State, who was it? Again, answer came there none. I talked to Mrs. Roberts again this week. Apart from being asked to contribute to a review of contact practices by the MOD's personnel services unit in circumstances of bereavement, she has had no further information, or even an approach from the Ministry.
	If that was an isolated examplea one-offit might be considered very regrettable, but a tragic exception that proved an otherwise impeccable rule. Unfortunately, however, my contact with other bereaved families suggests that the pattern is all too often the same. There is initial support from the immediate team in the unit concernedthat is very goodfollowed by limited information, which is often misleading and always incomplete, from the Ministry of Defence, then months of total silence, or sketchy details from apparently unofficial sources which cause more confusion than certainty. When at last results of a sort emerge from the official investigation, they appear piecemeal and without any conclusive MOD verdict.
	After a full 12 months, many of these families are still in the dark about what caused the loss of their loved ones and whether lessons from mistakes have been learned for the future. That would seem to be precisely the case with the families of the Sea King helicopter crewsbased at RNAS Culdrose in my county of Cornwallwho died in a collision during a night flight on 22 March 2003, at the very outbreak of hostilities. For many months, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I have been trying to establish the facts of that tragedy on behalf of those families. Last June, the original preliminary conclusions from a board of inquiry told the relatives that the cause of the crash was indeterminable. That report, which I have been shown by the families, concludes that
	there is insufficient evidence to determine positively the cause of the accident.
	There was certainly no criticism of the crews or any suggestion of pilot error. Indeed, it was implied that the problem might well have been the absence of night vision facilities, or the detailed advice that was available from air traffic control. The recommendations included the following:
	consideration should be given to fitting all embarked aircraft with a night vision capability.
	After months of ineffective contact, with families pressing unsuccessfully for more details of the investigation, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), told me:
	Both aircraft had reported visual contact with each other, but apparently lost situational awareness and collided. The aircraft were responsible for their own safety at the time of the collision.[Official Report, 29 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 505W.]
	To the parents of those brave young men, that sounded all too like an attempt to shift the blame onto the pilots.
	The Minister has since amplified his explanation, but the families remain understandably frustrated by the lack of a full and final conclusion to the investigation. Only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives received some answers to his questions12 months after the eventbut the exact significance of the absence of night vision goggles remains a mystery. It would seem that it is another example of equipment failure. When he asked to be given a demonstration of their potential value, his request was refused. As in the case of the Roberts family, 12 months is far too long to take to get at the truth. Presumably, the memories of witnesses are beginning to fade and the trail is going cold.
	Yet another exampleagain via my west country connectionis that of Marine Christopher Maddison, who was based at Plymouth, and whose tragic and unnecessary death on 30 March 2003 I first drew to the attention of the House in a debate many months ago. Long after he was killed, his family became aware that the circumstances were not as the Ministry had originally informed them. However, it took a BBC documentary to expose the facts. A leaked report from the official inquiry revealed that Marine Maddison was the victim of a commando operation plagued byI quote from its report
	bad planning, unreliable communications, inadequate equipment and poor leadership.
	So it is another case involving inadequate equipment. What is more, it seems that he was yet another victim of a terrible and avoidable accidenthe was killed by so-called friendly fire. That leaked report spared no sensitivities in its criticism of the original investigation. It states:
	It is the Board's view that professional inadequacies, factual errors, a lack of rigorous investigation of the facts available at the time . . . were the prime causes of the production of an inaccurate set of findings.
	The House may find it difficult to believe, but the Ministry has yet to release all that material to Christopher Maddison's mother. On the sad anniversary of his death earlier this week, I heard her express understandable outrage at the way in which she has been treated by the Government who sent her son to his death in Iraq.
	I have cited just three examples that are known to me personally because of my west country connections. Judging from my postbag, other service familiesno doubt in the constituencies of Members here todayfeel equally hurt, frustrated, or even angry at the way in which they have been treated. Whatever other lessons the Ministry of Defence is learning from its recent experience of the operations in Iraq, I hope and pray that Ministers are determined to improve the way in which they treat the relatives of those who are injured or even lose their lives on our behalf and on behalf of their country.
	I have some simple questions. Why do such investigations take 12 months or more? Why are families not given more regular progress reports? Why is information so often slipped out piecemeal, with no official, let alone ministerial, overview? How can the initial investigation be so inaccurate and the eventual board of inquiry so secretive? Is it not time that a high-powered unit within the MOD, directly responsible to the Secretary of State, took responsibility for regular and effective liaison with such families? Given that in so many cases the lack of appropriate equipment seems to have been a major factor, who takes responsibility for that, who takes the blame, and who is making sure that such problems do not recur?
	All the service families with whom I have been in contact over the past year share one overriding concernthey want to be sure that their loved ones did not die in vain and that the Ministry that sent them to war will do everything in its power to avoid similar mistakes in future. I hope that all hon. Members agree that that is not an unreasonable expectation.

Llew Smith: I shall be fairly brief and raise what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might describe as a parochial issue: the Richard commission to examine the powers of, and electoral arrangements for, the National Assembly for Wales. In case some hon. Members are not aware of the fact, I should point out that the Richard commission was not elected. It was not accountable and, indeed, could not be removed.
	I gave evidence to the commission, and it was fairly obvious that it was not only undemocratic, but incompetent. I provided it with a written submission, which I read out to it. Lord Richard then informed me that the commission would be unable to cross-examine me because it did not have prior information about what I was going to say. I found that amazing, because Members of this House cross-examine Ministers daily; Assembly Members in Cardiff cross-examine Ministers daily; and, indeed, members of my local authority cross-examine executive members of the council daily. It seems as if Lord Richard did not have the ability to carry out the act that each of us does just about every day of the year.
	It was obvious from the day that the Richard commission was set up that its conclusions would merely reflect his master's voicehis master being Rhodri Morgan. I raised that matter when I addressed the commission. When I said that I could anticipate its conclusions, Lord Richard was not too happy. I said, Well, you were appointed by Rhodri Morgan, so you reflect the views of Rhodri Morgan. He intervened quickly to say that Rhodri Morgan did not appoint the commission's members. I posed the question, Who appointed you? He replied, Rhodri Morgan, to which I replied, End of the argument. Lord Richard did not appoint all the members of the commission, because Rhodri Morgan was also involved.
	When I read the Richard commission's recommendations yesterday, I was not at all surprised. As I had anticipated, its proposals reflected his master's voice. Although I was not surprised, I thought, What a cheek these people have got. Some of us remember, and were involved in, the campaign on whether we should have a National Assembly for Wales. I argued that we should not; I said that having such an Assembly would eventually lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, but I was told that I was talking nonsense and scaremongering. We were told that the creation of the National Assembly for Walesor Welsh Assembly, as it is more popularly knownwas necessary because Wales had become a quango state and that, increasingly, all the most important decisions were taken by quangos. We were told that the way to rectify that wrong was to create the National Assembly for Wales and to give it the power to prompt a bonfire of all those quangos.
	I have studied that matter in detail, and I published a pamphlet on it a short time ago. We find that there are now more quangos than when the Assembly was established; that there are more than when the referendum took place; and that they are more powerful and have even greater influence on the politics of Wales today than when they were criticised several years ago. The bonfire of the quangos has not happened; the process has been a damp squib, because there are more quangos than before. The Assembly was supposed not only to get rid of the quangos, but to democratise Wales. The powers in the hands of the quangos were to be transferred either to a democratically elected Welsh Assembly or to local authorities. As yet, we have seen neither a bonfire of the quangos nor the democratisation of Wales. If the Assembly has not used its powers to make a bonfire of the quangos, which the electorate marginally gave it some years ago, why should we agreethis demonstrates the cheek of the Richard commissionto the demand for even more powers?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made the point that some people in Wales say, We've got to have powers identical to those of the Scottish Parliament, but I have never understood that argument. I have always been in favour of devolution, but opposed to the creation of the Welsh Assembly. I often heard the argument that we are different in Wales and that that explained why we needed an institution that was different from that in Scotland. At least that was a good argument, but we have reverted to merely copying Scotland.
	Decisions should be made at the most appropriate level. For example, some decisions might best be made by local authorities or the Welsh Assembly, but decision making about health in Wales is not a classic example of a subject that requires more devolution from Westminster to Cardiffthe opposite. National health service powers should revert to Westminster, because the way in which they have been used in Wales since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly is unacceptable.
	I have great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I agreed with 90 per cent. of his speech, but I do not agree with his point that unemployment rates now, compared with those in 1997, are an example of the Welsh Assembly's success. I do not believe that a decrease in unemployment in Wales is a result of the Welsh Assembly's contribution. If that were so, one would not expect a similar decrease in other parts of the United Kingdom, yet dramatic decreases have occurred elsewhere. Not too many years ago, I participated in demonstrations and campaigns against the fact that 3 million people were on the dole.
	We are going down the slippery slope. When we held the referendum, I said, Take it from me, before Assembly Members have the opportunity to put their bums on their seats, they will be demanding a Parliament. I was told that that was scaremongering. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and before their bums hit the seats in the Assembly building in Cardiff bay, they demanded a Parliament. If we agreed to a Parliament, they would demand even more powers. One day, we would wake up and find that Wales was separate from the rest of the United Kingdomthe nationalist dream become reality.
	We were told that a Welsh Assembly would revolutionise Wales, but no reasons for that were given. It was said that the mere existence of an Assembly would be enough to bring about a revolution. In the months ahead, different parts of the Labour movementand, I am sure, Parliamentwill debate the Richard report. I was one of those whom a then Cabinet member threatened to kick out of the Labour party if I campaigned against a Welsh Assembly. I say in advance, in case history repeats itself, that if the creation of a Parliament is in our manifesto for the next general election, I shall campaign against it.
	The Richard commission recommends that we should increase the number of Assembly Members from 60 to 80. Before the Assembly was set up, Parliament was responsible for all primary and secondary legislation and there were 40 Members of Parliament in Wales. The Welsh Assembly was created with 60 Members, simply to examine secondary legislation, but it is not satisfied. Should it have primary legislative powers, it wants 80 Members, even though it would not have the work load or responsibility of this Parliament.
	An additional 20 Assembly Members might not go down too well with the taxpayers, but we are told not to worry because they would cost only another 10 million. Before the referendum, we were told by the yes campaign that a Welsh assembly would cost 20 million, which would be more than enough to run it, and that it would be funded through a bonfire of the quangos. Following the appointment of hundreds of additional civil servants, the cost of running the Assembly is in fact hundreds of millions of pounds.
	Another recommendation arising from the Richard commission involves the possibility of a referendum. I am totally opposed to the proposals, as I have said, but if they should go through this House and become a reality, I would participate in the referendum campaign. The question asked should concentrate not only on whether we should give the Welsh Assembly more powers, but on whether we wish to scrap that institution. That would be a far more balanced referendum. I hope that I shall not have to participate in any such referendum, because I hope that my party will have the good sense not to go down the separatist road. If it does, I shall participate in the referendum campaign, as I did in the previous one.

Virginia Bottomley: I very much appreciate having the opportunity to draw to the House's attention five important issues for my constituents.
	The first, following the comments of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), relates not to legislation but to the implications and delivery that follow on from legislation. Yesterday, Michael Varah, who had been the chief probation officer for Surrey, left the probation service before time, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look into the reasons for his departure. Surrey is an area where it is difficult to find public servants, yet it has exceeded others in its delivery of probation services. It is the third highest performer out of the 42 probation services, and has achieved the highest score on the European excellence model, and the highest level of sentencer satisfaction in the south-east. Its Investors in People award has been renewed, and it is the top-performing area out of 42 in terms of efficient use of space and its accredited programme completions. It also has the highest staff job satisfaction in the south-east, which is a remarkable outcome, and it was the first to achieve the citizens charter award. Michael Varah is leaving his post early, and all that I ask of the Home Secretary is to ensure that Mr. Varah's views on the National Offender Management Service are properly considered. The legislation has gone through, and it will be two months before the new service begins its work. The comments of a public servant such as Michael Varah, who is dedicated to the general good, would be very useful indeed.
	My second subject is Farnham castle, of which I am president. It is a wonderful 12th century castle dedicated to intercultural briefing. For years, it was dedicated to training British expats going overseas to work in different parts of the world. It has reinvented its mission and is now involved in briefing people coming to this country. My connection is with Sir Bernard Crick's work, The New and the Old, the report of the Life in the United Kingdom advisory group. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 required that residents seeking British citizenship be tested to show that they had a sufficient knowledge of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic, and a sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. I have been interested in race relations for many decadesperhaps since I was chairman of the juvenile court in Brixton at the time of the Brixton riotsand I believe that the provision of sensitive training and preparation for people coming to live in this country is enormously important. Farnham castle has run four excellent pilot programmes for teachers of English as a second language. However, work on the highly skilled migrant programme and in other areas seems to have come to a grinding halt. There were high expectations for those initiatives, which I believe could make a profound difference. Will the Minister ensure that I receive a reply from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office, to tell me what the next steps are to be? The programmes that Farnham castle has run, which Sir Bernard Crick visited, were funded generously by the Esme Fairburn foundation. There appears to be no funding and no progress, but surely at this time, when race relations are perhaps more important than at any previous time, some practical examples of good practice could be developed.
	One thing that I shall miss when I am no longer a Member of Parliament is the diversity of issues that constituents bring to us. Last Friday, students from the Surrey Institute of Art and Design came to my surgery. I imagined that they were going to protest, as students did yesterday, about the Government's appalling steps to ensure that students live in poverty and are discouraged from applying for courses that provide no immediate remuneration. But that was not the case. James Lee and his team from the Surrey Institute of Art and Design came to see me on a subject on which I have never been contacted previously. They wanted me to know that one of the unforeseen consequences of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 may be the loss of up to 50 per cent. of public toilets. The British Toilet Association, about whose existence I must admit that I was not altogether well briefed, has done excellent work on this matter. Its strong belief is that in too many cases local authorities will close public toilets because it is too costly to make them disabled-accessible. I ask the Minister whether he can bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Local and Regional Government, and perhaps discussions can take place with the Local Government Association, so that the excellent students at the Surrey Institute of Art and Design, while disappointed at the Government's progress with regard to student fees, can at least feel encouraged on this matter of fundamental importance.
	My constituency has an Abbeyfield home at Haslemere, two in Farnham, and a special care Abbeyfield home. There are 800 Abbeyfield homes across the country. Taking over from Dame Gillian Wagner, I have become the national president. Abbeyfield's concern is that lack of progress on the supporting people grant is putting its work in serious jeopardy. I am sure that virtually every Member values the work that Abbeyfield society homes do in their constituencies to provide sheltered accommodation and support to older people, with care, companionship and privacy in a collegiate atmosphere. Volunteers and others are generous with their time and resources. At a time when all too many homes for the elderly are closing because the Government insist on higher standards without being able to make the financial means available, it would be a great shame if such an effective, successful movement were seriously jeopardised. I simply ask that the Deputy Prime Minister's colleague who is most responsible for this issue should meet Brian House, Abbeyfield's chief executive, to discuss why a relatively small modification in the supporting people grant could make all the difference.
	I fear that my last and fifth point is of a particularly grave and disappointing nature. The rumour mill in my constituency is turning once again about grave and serious implications from internal NHS decisions, which will force decisions on our local primary care trust that will be entirely unacceptable to local people, and that will entirely breach the growing respect and confidence that they have begun to regain in the NHS. One of the greatest disappointments about Labour when it came to power was that in the first couple of years after 1997, as many as one in 10 of my constituents were waiting more than a year for in-patient treatment, whereas the figure in Durham was only ever one in 100. We had a serious crisis, with more and more people having to go to private sources to ensure that they received adequate health care. I have now received messages again from Milford hospital and Haslemere hospital suggesting that the flexibility that was available will be withdrawn and that several million pounds will be taken out of the budget, or decisions will be taken that will entirely destroy any sense of consensus about the NHS. I hope that the Minister will bring that to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. Surrey contains many people who pay a high rate of tax. They pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer in good spirit, but they expect a fair return. It is wrong that people on social security in Surrey should receive a much worse standard of health care than people on social security in Bermondsey or Durham. The cost of living and the cost of wages are so great in Surrey that the delivery of public services is particularly difficult there. We have already lost an excellent health authority chief executivesomeone like Michael Varahwho was dedicated to the NHS. Six years ago, she was asked to try to deliver the undeliverable. We now have a new team, dedicated and professional, who fear that mounting pressures may prevent them from delivering what is required. We must present our public servants with challenges that are achievable. I hope that the Minister will be able to convey that to the Secretary of State for Health before the Easter break.
	I hope that I have spoken within my allotted 10 minutes, which will have pleased my colleagues. I apologise to the Minister for not being able to be present for the winding-up speech. That is a grave discourtesybut I will read every word with the greatest care as I open my Easter eggs.

Alan Hurst: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few observations about the fragile health of local government. Like many Membersalthough, I suspect, none who are present nowI have served on the borough council in Southend-on-Sea, and also on the county council. One of the disadvantages of maturing in years is that one's ideas appear to be outdated until they come back into fashion. I await the time when what I am about to say comes back into fashion. When I was elected to the borough council in 1980, I had the privilege of serving on the bus committee because we had a fleet of buses. I had the pleasure of serving on the airport committee because the council had its own airport. I had the pleasure of serving on the amenities committee because we had theatres, piers, bandstands and a range of municipal enterprises run by the local authority. I did not serve on the housing committee; had I done so, I would have been in a position to consider housing policy in the borough, and decide whether to admit people to tenancies.
	Over the years, the situation has changed. No one can deny that. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is present, knows full well that we no longer have a fleet of buses, an airport or many of the other facilities that were once operated directly by the council. However, I think that the decline in local authorities' ability to influence the lives of those whom they serve has been diminished in an even more important way. One of the pleasures of all councillors was to serve on a planning committee. I say that it was a pleasure, but it was not a pleasure to be contacted by all and sundry about the decision that one was about to make. Whatever decision was made was almost invariably wrong in some people's eyes. Nevertheless, one had the ability to make a decision on what should happen in the community, based on local knowledge and representation. The present doctrine requires one to sit there like a puisne judge and regard the whole thing as a quasi-legal process, staying clear of any electors who might approach one, lest one disqualify oneself from making the decision by listening to them. As a consequence, yet another function of the locally elected councillor has been diminished to the point at which it lacks any democratic vitality.
	I do not wish to paraphrase the great former Member Aneurin Bevan, who kept trying to see where the power was as he moved up local government, but I then served on the county council. When I first went there, the county council had a police committee, on which I served. Elected members had a major responsibility for considering not the operational details, but the general direction of the force within their own county. The county council also operated the fire brigade, as it was then known, in the county. Local authorities also ran colleges of higher education. All of those matters have been stripped away from local authorities to the various bodies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) referred in relation to the Principality.
	Is it a surprise that fewer people now take an interest in serving on local authorities or in taking part in the election of those few who wish to serve on them? Alas, what I have said is not even the end of the decline. The decline has gone on apace under Governments of both political persuasions. We now have cabinet-style government in local authorities. That was to be the dynamic engine to drive local government into the 21st century, as the clich has it. There always was a cabinet in local government. The leaders of the controlling party would meet to map out the course it was to take; they would then have the devil of a job steering policies through the committees because their own supporters would wish to promote local matters.
	That appears not to be so now. We have cabinetsa grand-sounding name which, to those of us unlikely ever to serve on one, has a certain distance. The cabinets make all sorts of decisions before they are ever discussed by elected representatives, either in the county or the borough. We have scrutiny committees, which ape the mode in this place. As far as I can understand from councillors I know, it is difficult for the scrutiny system to be effective. In any event, the decisions have been made already.
	We have novelties such as elected mayors in some placesfortunately, the county of Essex has not been burdened with such an ideabut they have not always turned out as people imagined. The major parties thought that people were bound to elect one of their own, but they have found that a Liberal, a member of the Green party or, in one case, an official monkey might be elected.
	I do not know how powerful some of those mayors are. We have heard about the former Member for Brent, East in his position as Mayor of London. The great leaders of the London county council such as Herbert Morrison would have been dismissive of the puny powers of the Mayor. We must consider what the non-mayors who led the county council achieved in the past, not just within the London but way out in the surrounding community. Their monuments are still there to be seen today. It is premature yet to judge whether the Mayor of London will achieve that.
	I do not believe that the purpose is to destroy local government. I believe that carelessness has slipped in over the past 20 to 25 years. If we allow that carelessness to continue, we should not be surprised if people are disinclined to take part in elections, however many postal votes we introduce or however many times we change the election date from one day to another. Each change in a way humiliates local government, as the election is tagged along with another election. I hope that the spirit in which I say that alludes not to the errors of judgment of any political party, but to a collective philosophy that we all share. It is perhaps now the time to say, No more. Let us consider what local accountability and local democracy are really about.

John Greenway: Before the House adjourns, I should like to raise the case of my constituent Major Richard Perkins, on whose behalf I have been corresponding with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence for more than four years. Major Perkins was discharged from the Army in 1959, following service with the Royal Leicestershire Regiment in Malaysia. In December 1958, a medical board pronounced him
	unfit for any form of military service.
	He had suffered a mental breakdown. Although he was unaware of this, his medical condition was judged by the MOD at the time not to be attributable to servicewhich was to become very important later.
	In October 1998, as many colleagues know, the Army personnel centre in Glasgow wrote to several hundred retired Army officers, drawing attention to an error in the tax treatment of the pensions of a number of former Army officers who had retired on health grounds before 31 March 1973. Major Perkins received such a letter, which said:
	Our records suggest that you may be affected by this error.
	A review determined that he was not entitled to tax-free status because his illness, according to the records, was not attributable.
	The pensions appeal tribunal subsequently overturned that decision, and on 15 August 2001 it ruled that his medical unfitness was attributable to service and that he had at the time suffered a major depressive episode. The Veterans Agency wrote to him immediately to inform him that he was therefore entitled to tax exemption and refunded the tax that he had paid on his pension since the date of his appeal in 1999. The agency, for some inexplicable reason, then undertook an assessment of his disability now. It determined that he had a 0 per cent. disability and that in consequence, he was not entitled to tax exemption after all. Tax deductions have recently been reinstated.
	I advised Major Perkins to appeal against that decision, as did the Forces Pension Society. I also wrote to the Armed Forces Minister on 19 Decembermy most recent letterasking him to review the case again and pointing out that the ruling of the pensions appeal tribunal could not have been more clear. What is the tribunal for, if its rulings are not to be honoured? At the time of his discharge in 1959, Major Perkins's medical unfitness was attributable to service, and successive tax statutes have confirmed that pensions payable in such circumstances should be exempt from tax. Indeed, the most recent such statute, the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003yes, it is that recentspecifically states:
	No liability to income tax arises on . . . retired pay of a disabled officer granted on account of medical unfitness attributable to or aggravated by service in the armed forces of the Crown.
	I am still awaiting a definitive response from the Armed Forces Minister to my letter of 19 December, although he has confirmed that the matter is being looked into.
	In the meantime, completely out of the blue, on 8 January the Veterans Agency advised Major Perkins that it had decided to revise its earlier judgment of 0 per cent. disability to a judgment of 15 to 19 per cent. disability, and granted him the appropriate level of war disablement gratuity. That should put beyond all possible doubt Major Perkins's entitlement to tax exemption, so why the continuing delay? That happened almost three months ago, but nothing has been done to confirm his entitlement to the tax exemption.
	By wrongly taxing Major Perkins for more than 40 years on what is an extremely modest pension, the MOD has significantly undermined his quality of life. My constituent is now 86 years old. The Government should surely refund the tax and pay to him without further delay the compensation that they have given to others, while he has the chance to enjoy it.
	Major Perkins lives at Lastingham, in the North York Moors national park, and I want to discuss the livestock farmers of that area, who will be critically affected by the Government's proposed reforms to the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate a couple of weeks ago, and I should like to endorse all that he said about the problems that producers face in what the jargon describes as a severely disadvantaged area. They face a significantly greater cut in support payments than will apply to lowland producersto the extent that they will get even less support than lowland farmers. That is not only unjust; it simply does not make sense. The support system has always recognised that upland farmers need additional help because of the difficult climate and landscape conditions under which they farm. They cannot grow quality crops, but access to good grassland in upland areas has enabled them to become the backbone of the beef and sheepmeat industry. Many in this country believe that that industry is the best in Europe, if not the world.
	The North York Moors national park committee is concerned that if these farmers are forced out of businessas many will bethe park's environment and landscape will be adversely affected. I am aware that representations are being made to Ministers, and many colleagues have raised their own concerns, but I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House passed on my concerns to his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and urged them to think again. I will be meeting some of these farmers in Ryedale during the Easter recess. They deserve to be reassured that, at the very least, the Government will re-draw the boundaries applicable to qualification for support payments in such a way that upland and lowland farmers will be treated more equally.
	The third issue concerns the town of Pickering, which lies at the foot of the North York moors and suffered severe flooding on no fewer than three occasions in the past three years: in March 1999, in October and November 2000, and in August 2002. Following the October 2000 flood, which colleagues will recall was particularly bad across Yorkshire, DEFRA Ministers agreed in February 2001 to fast-track eight flood defence schemes in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Pickering's is the only scheme that has not been progressed. The reason why is that it is both difficult to engineer and less easy to justify financially, because fewer properties there are affected by flooding than are affected in the more urban areas.
	At a recent meeting, the Yorkshire regional flood defence committee, on the advice of the Environment Agency, decided to defer the scheme for further technical appraisal. However, the fast-track status of February 2001 expired yesterday, and even though the new points-scoring systemintroduced by DEFRA in association with the Environment Agencyis less onerous than before, the considered view is that Pickering is unlikely ever to qualify for a scheme without the Government recognising that it is a special case and that the normal rules need not apply. Indeed, that is why special status was awarded three years ago. There is widespread disappointment and dismay at the fact that the Minister with responsibility for floods and his Department have declined the flood defence committee's request that special status be extended for a further two years. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I presented a petition on this matter only last week, as I think you were in the Chair at the time. To all intents and purposes, the Government promised Pickering a scheme. I hope that the Minister with responsibility for floods will, in time, respond more positively to help us to deliver on that promise to the town's residents and affected businesses.
	My final pointI shall be as brief as possibleis about a more national and pressing matter relating to terrorism insurance. I remind the House of my long interest and experience in the industry. Members may recall that, following the IRA bomb at St. Mary Axe in 1993, insurers withdrew from providing insurance cover for property damage caused by terrorism. The all-party insurance and financial services group, which I have chaired since 1992, persuaded the then Government to set up a Government-sponsored insurerPool Re, a company which has worked extremely successfully. Following a number of approaches from the insurance industry, Pool Re's remit has recently been extended to cover business interruption, the point being that many businesses cannot trade for long periods if their premises are destroyed by a terrorist bomb.
	The Treasury is endeavouring to make that important change without the need for further primary legislation, which is a wholly laudable aim. However, I want to suggest to the Leader of the House that significant difficulties of definition have led to uncertainty within the London insurance market as to the cover provided. The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 was written to deal with the threat posed by the IRA, not by al-Qaeda, so there are problems over the definition of organisations. In 1993 atrocities were caused by terrorist bombs; the atrocity at the World Trade Center in New York was caused by impact. There is also a desperate need to cater for public and employer liability, particularly in the area of bodily injury.
	Insurers and their clients need greater certainty than is felt within the market at present. I am aware that there are ongoing discussions with the Government and the industry and I very much hope that the Leader of the House will expedite the matter.
	Discussing terrorism on the floor of the House is always difficult, but if the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Ministers are warning us that a terrorist incident in one of our major cities may be inevitable, the preparations that we make for such an appalling eventuality must surely incorporate being ready for the financial consequences. That problem has to be resolved with real urgency and I hope that what I have said will help to achieve that.

John Cryer: In common with most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I shall raise a series of mainly parochial issues. The first is about primary education in my Hornchurch constituency. There is a Conservative-run council in Haveringsadly, because it is both incompetent and bloody-minded. That has been demonstrated over recent weeks and months as it had created a position whereby at least two, possibly three, primary schools feel threatened with closure.
	The brief history is that the council initially commissioned a report, according to which, because of surplus places in area that it defined as Elm Park and South Hornchurch, the R J Mitchell school had to close. The school is named after the designer of the Spitfire because the school is located in what was once RAF Hornchurch, a historical site. A magnificent local campaign was conducted, with which I was involved, and it managed to defeat that proposal. Although school places were somewhat down in that particular school, it had a rising reputation, and I believe that in the next four or five years with house building in the borough and young families moving into the area the school numbers will increase.
	The council then decided to set up a working party to reflect and report on the conclusions of the original report. Someone in the administration selectively leaked the findings of the working party, to the effect that two different schools were now under threatSuttons and Ayloff schools in the same Elm Park and South Hornchurch area. Now, three schools are panicking over possibly facing closure and the council has managed to alienate the maximum number of people that it could. I attended meetings at Suttons, R J Mitchell and Ayloff schools and we had lobbies at the town hall.
	If, a few months ago, someone had sat down to think about how to create maximum concern, panic and worry among governors, staff, teachers and children, they could not have produced a better plan. The council has gone as far as it is possible to go to alienate the maximum number of people in that part of my constituency.
	Apparently, a decision will be made next week about which school might face closure, but there is no need for any of those schools to close. Suttons school is full and has a very good reputation. Ayloff school has some spare places, but only 14 per cent.which is well under Government guidelines that stipulate that action should be taken only if the spare places reach 25 per cent. or more. Even then, the guidelines do not mention closure, but only the possibility, among other measures, of reducing capacity.
	There is no reason why any of those schools should close. The latest to be threatenedAyloff and Suttonshave good reputations; they are attractive schools and people actually move into the area so that their children can attend them. The same is true of R J Mitchell. None of them should face closure. I hope that we can win a victory on that campaign, as we did for the R J Mitchell school.
	Secondly, I want to raise something that has been discussed many, many times in these debates and on other occasions in the House: mobile phone masts.

David Amess: Hear, hear.

John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is already getting excitedperhaps he will be raising the same issue later.
	Two campaigns are under way in my constituency. The first is on O2's proposal to erect a mobile phone mast close to a primary school in an area called St. Leonard's hamletthe original name for the Shoreditch children's home, mainly for orphans from the east end of London who were moved there in the 1920s, 1930s and later. However, the Stewart reportthe most substantive piece of work on mobile phone mast technologymade it clear that, as a preventive measure, such masts should not be sited near primary schools. The skulls of children aged under 12 are less developed than those of adults, so they would be the most affected by any radiation produced by such masts.
	I am not thrilled about having such masts anywhere in my constituency, but I realise that millions of people use mobile phones so the masts have to go somewhere. O2 wanted to put the mast next to St. Mary's school. That plan was rejected and the company submitted a proposal to put the mast on top of Harrow Lodge sports centre. Again, the plan was abandoned and it was proposed to erect the mast near St. Leonard's hamletmuch of which, due to its historical significance, is a conservation area. An effective local campaign is resisting that plan and the council has persuaded O2 to go back to the drawing board and reconsider.
	O2 is proposing to erect another aerial near two schools on the same site. Their namesthe Scargill infants school and the Scargill junior schoolwill have resonance for many Members. In the light of the Stewart report, and given the defeat of the company's previous attempts to put up aerials near primary schools, the House might have thought that O2 had learned a lesson and would look elsewherebut no, it is trying to stick another aerial next to a junior and an infants school. Again, there is a local campaign and I hope that those plans can be defeated, as were others in the past.
	My third point relates to the docklands light railway. Much of my constituency is in the Thames gateway regeneration area, for which there are great plans. Indeed, some of them have already been put into effect, while others will come to fruition over the next decade or so. However, there is one thing missing for Dagenham and also for Rainham, which is in the south of my constituency next to the Thames: transport links. There is a plan to extend the DLRperhaps as far as Barking. It should go not only as far Dagenham but also to Rainham, because the transport links to London are inadequate.
	The current rail servicec2c, formerly the London, Tilbury and Southend railwayis not sufficient to carry people in and out of the City during the rush hour; even at peak times, there are only three trains an hour. Any transport expert would tell the House that an effective commuter line for London needs at least four, and preferably five or six, trains an hour. Three trains an hour are not enough. The most obvious solution is to extend the DLR, and unless that is done the Thames gateway will not succeed. I have raised that with Transport for London, with the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and with a number of people in various capacities. There is a possibility that those proposals will come to fruition, but I am raising the issue today to emphasise that we need those transports links.
	Lastly, I want to raise the issue of the Richard commission, although I am not a Welsh Member of Parliamentmy constituency is in London. The Richard commission has recommended the introduction of the single transferable vote to the Welsh Assembly. What worries me is that if there were any possibility of the Richard commission proposals being accepted, such things could be proposed elsewhere. There are principally three areasScotland, Wales and Londonwhere we have a kind of proportional system. A sort of vague, messy, bucket of pigs' entrails system has been introduced in London, Wales and Scotland. It is usually known as the additional member system. No one wanted it, and no one wants it now. It is very unclear, vague and not particularly accountable. Personally, as a matter of principle, I am completely opposed to proportional representation anyway. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Thanks for that.
	Some time ago, shortly after the introduction of the Greater London authority, I tabled a question during the pilot period, when the precise definition of the GLA had not been completed, about what representations were made during the consultative period in support of what has become known as the additional member system. The answer that I received was that, out of 1,000 responses on the electoral system to be adopted, nine supported the additional member system, which, cynical as I am, led me to think that the Government would foist a tacky system like that on London, no matter what Londoners actually wanted. That is what we have seen.
	If we move further towards a more pure proportional system, such as STV, we will have less effective representation. If we go down the route of increasing proportionality, we lose representationwe lose that constituency link. There is no choice about that. The problem for a lot of people who support proportional representation is that they think that, somewhere, there is a semi-mystical system that will provide perfect representation and a perfect constituency link will be preserved, yet there will also be perfect proportionality. Such a system does not exist.
	The first-past-the-post system is obviously not perfect, but no system is perfect. First past the post is the nearest to a perfect system that we have. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] All right, calm down. It preserves direct accountability to the electorate. If we move further towards STV, we will see further alienation from the democratic process and increasing numbers of people failing to vote. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), I am not exactly clear of the genesis of the Richard commission, but if those ideas start to be adopted, it will be a disaster for representative democracy.
	I have always supported the concept of a Greater London authority. The Greater London council should never have been abolishedthat was just a Tory plot to try to rig things. The GLC should have been preserved. If we have some sort of Greater London authority, it should be run using the first-past-the-post system, with a single member for each borough. That is the most direct way to do things.
	In the past four, five or six years, I have not heard a convincing argument for why we have the absurd system of twinning boroughs and an additional member system that no one wanted in the first place. We should do away with that system, have a single member for each borough and go back to first past the post, so we can re-establish the direct link and democratically accountability.

Angela Browning: I shall transport the House from the boroughs of London to beautiful Devon, which is looking particularly good at the moment. The primroses are out in the banks, as are the celandines, and there is a touch of green in the hedges. I hope that many Members will spend their Easter break in my county.
	I shall raise some problems in rural Devon. The size of my rural constituency is 600 sq miles. It is made up of small market towns and very small villages. Today, as I was thinking about what I wanted to say about Devon villages, I received a letter from the Countryside Agency advising me that the vital villages programme will close to new applicants. At the heart of this is the fact that the agency has had a reduction of 104.5 million in its settlement. Therefore, it will have to readjust its last published corporate plan.
	The purpose of the vital villages programme was to enable villages to plan for their own future and to come together with the community to consider the vital services that all villages need. I fear for the survival of some of my villages where they already have problems with maintaining village halls. We have had much to say about village halls but they are important to a small community. I think particularly of my most northerly parish of Morebath, which is on the Exmoor border. Unfortunately, the village hall became so unsafe that it had to be demolished. The land is still available but the community must save from scratch to build a new hall.
	In the south of my constituency, I have an acute problem in a small village called Gittisham, near the town of Honiton. Only a week ago, the occupants of 27 homes, all owned by one landlord, were advised that their tenancies would be terminated. That represents two thirds of the village. The impact on the community speaks for itself. Members should visualise the impact in the context of a town. If two thirds of a town's community were told, You have three months' notice, that would present a real problem to that town or that community. I am working with all the agencies that are trying to find a solution to that acute problem.
	East Devon district council, which constitutes the housing department in that part of Devon, is faced with having to rehouse these people. It already has 3,600 people on the housing list waiting for a home. Families with children will want to remain connected with their local schools. Elderly people will have packages of support from their social services department. I have written to the Minister, Lord Rooker, and I hope that his Department will fast-track an answer to me today so that when I return to Devon for the Easter recess I can meet the community and, if not solve the problem overnight, at least identify some options that might alleviate the acute problem that is faced in this small village.
	Every village has the problem of post office closures. In my postbag today, I received a letter from the Payhembury parish council in east Devon, to advise me that it is concerned that it will lose access to its local village petrol pump because of action taken by the Environment Agency, which in following through a small spillage of oil has identified that although that problem has been sorted, the very small petrol station will have to fix some kit to the petrol pumps. The capital investment will be more than the petrol station makes in profit from the pumps. I hope that the Minister, who is smiling, is smiling sympathetically in response to the problem. If Payhembury loses its petrol pumps, motorists will have to make a 15-mile round trip to get petrol.
	A small shop is attached to the petrol station. If the pumps go, there is a risk that the village shop will be lost as well. These are the day-to-day problems in villages in glorious Devon.
	It seems a most untimely decision to curtail the activities of the Countryside Agency in its support for villages and rural communities that face myriad problems. My message to the Minister on the Treasury Bench, who I know will take up these matters with the appropriate Government Departments, is please to think again about the problems of rural communities.
	At the heart of rural communities, of course, is the farming industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned the impact of the changes to the common agricultural policy and the very difficult problems we will have on the uplands. I am worried about that because the landscape will changeit will go back to nature. That does not mean that it will look more beautiful than it does now. It will look unkempt and wild, so there will be a big environmental impact.
	As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that is not land on which one can grow crops, but it is suitable for rearing animals. Is it not ironic that at a time when we may not be able to support farming and animal farming on the uplands, we face the prospect, through changes to the rules on animal transportation, that we may end up eating more horses? Perhaps that is the game plan. We will not eat cattle and sheep; we will have to resort to eating horses.
	We have been pressing the Government to use their powers to ensure the protection of horses, particularly horses that go abroad and end up in the meat trade, especially in Francea subject I know about, having been responsible at one time for equine health. We are begging the Government to ensure that the long-standing protection of our ponies on Dartmoor and in the New Forestthose low-value horses that we have always protected from being sold off as cheap meat abroadis maintained in our British law. I urge the Government again today to use that power to ensure that our horses are protected.
	I know that hon. Members are concerned about the time, but I shall raise one more issue. I was bitterly disappointed yesterday. I tried not to show it. I tried to be brave about it. After months and months of putting my name in the ballot for a question at Prime Minister's Question Time, I came up in the ballot yesterday, but I was No. 9 and that number was not reached. I must admit that I did not know until yesterday morning that I was in the ballot. I had got so used to not being drawn in the ballot that I had forgotten to look. It is rather like the national lotteryI forget to look to see whether I have won anything. There it was: No. 9, so I spent most of yesterday morning preparing the killer question to the Prime Minister, which I never had the chance to deliver.
	I shall deliver the question now to the Minister on the Treasury Bench. It is about why the Prime Minister persists in denying the United Kingdom a referendum on the EU constitution. Within a year after the Government came in, they had had four referendums. Since they have been in office, they have held 34 referendums. So keen were they to move to referendums to give people a greater say in decision making that they introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That showed us that they were serious and that they had a long-term plan to keep on holding referendums. What happened?
	The Government promised a referendum on the euro, but every public opinion poll has shown that, even if they held a referendum, they would not win it. The same is true of the constitution. The Prime Minister uses all sorts of excuses. First he says it is a matter for Parliament, and he prays in aid the factI shall say this very slowlythat an EU constitution is not a constitutional matter. Discuss. We will try and discuss it as much as we can. It is illogical to suggest that a matter to which so much time has been devoted and on which there is a document on the table entitled EU Constitution is not a constitutional matter.
	I shall indulge myself by elaborating on the question that I intended to put the Prime Minister. There has been a lot of talk about a speech made in Berlin on the EU constitution, but one speech was made before my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made his, and that was the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). In Berlin, in 1998, he said:
	Today, people want to be more involved. Tony Blair's Government has already held two referendums and three more are at some stage in prospect, not to mention more citizens' movements, more action from pressure groups. Democracy and legitimacy need constant renewal. They need to be redefined with each generation. Representative government is being complemented by more direct forms of involvement from the internet to referendums. This requires a different style of politics and we are trying to respond to these changes.
	It has been clear from the beginning of this Labour Government that referendums are on the agenda. They were part of the game plan. But now when the really big one comes up

Bob Spink: They are bottling out.

Angela Browning: They are bottling out. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
	If I am ever fortunate enough to be successful again in the ballot for Prime Minister's questions, I shall return to that subject because the British people deserve to have a say in a constitution.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At least five, perhaps six, hon. Members are trying to catch my eye in the remaining 60 or so minutes available. In a spirit of good will as Easter approaches, perhaps hon. Members will have regard to their colleagues so that everyone can be fitted in.

Ross Cranston: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I had Question 6 to the Prime Minister yesterday, and I was not called, and if the House will indulge me further in terms of time, I simply point out that Government Back Benchers have a much more difficult task in catching Mr. Speaker's eye because of our numbers.
	I want to raise the issue of how preserving people's security can give rise to a tension with maintaining our democratic liberties. Unfortunately, debate on this issue in this House, the other place and outside is often bedevilled by the failure of many of those claiming to protect our liberties to acknowledge the concerns of ordinary people, from antisocial behaviour to terrorist threats. They use a traditional stylised analysis that fails to connect with such concerns. That is sometimes coupled with claims to a moral rectitude, which frankly sticks in my craw. I claim no monopoly of concern, conscience or wisdom in the remarks that I am about to make.
	I take as an example the concern about terrorism of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I acknowledge at the outset that there is a real danger that our response to terrorism may undermine the very democratic values that we seek to uphold. As my noble Friend the Attorney-General said in a thoughtful speech last night to the Bar parliamentary group, our response cannot be simply a utilitarian calculation, weighing the rights of security of the many against the legal rights of the few. That would ignore the values on which our democratic society is built. We must approach the issue as a matter of moral principle, not simply as a matter of pure self-interest.
	That is why on various occasions, including previous recess debates, I have raised my concerns about Guantanamo bay, which is an American own goal. The detentions there impose grave harm on the detainees when, in the absence of proper judicial scrutiny, we can only speculate whether it is for the benefit of the American people or of people elsewhere, such as the United Kingdom.
	We face, of course, a serious terrorist threatits seriousness is underlined by the arrests earlier this week. Al-Qaeda and its sympathisers are of a completely different character from terrorists in the past. They are a global, messianic movement and they are not concerned about destroying innocent lives in the pursuit of their unachievable goal of overthrowing western civilisation.
	How should we respond? We must respond in accordance with law, mindful that, as Lord Hoffmann said in the Rehman case,
	in matters of national security the cost of failure can be high.
	Provisions such as the Explosive Substances Act 1883, which catches terrorist bombing, have been on the statute book for many years, and the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 approach the problem in the same way. The width of the offences is sometimes criticised, but the criticism mainly concerns the enforcement of the legislation, to which I shall return.
	In the main, we have met the terrorist threat in a traditional way, in accordance with law and our principles of civil liberties and human rights. The one exception is part 4 of the 2001 Act, which allows for the detention of foreign nationals certified by the Home Secretary as a risk to national security and as suspected terrorists. Such foreign nationals cannot be deported because we cannot guarantee their human rights, so they can be detained indefinitely under the 2001 Act.
	Without further measures, that power of detention would be unacceptable and the report by Lord Newton of Braintree and other Privy Councillors that those provisions should be repealed would be compelling. However, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which is a court of record with the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal, regularly reviews the detention of persons under part 4. SIAC may use intelligence information that is not available to the defendant, but that is seen by special advocates appointed to act on behalf of detainees. It is a further point in support of our independent BarI declare an interest at this pointthat those advocates are of the highest competence and integrity.
	Examples such as last year's Ajouaou case show the thoroughness with which SIAC approaches such matters. More recently the case of M, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, shows that SIAC is no pushover. Frankly, the alternatives advanced in the Privy Councillors' report such as surveillance and tagging will not work with the most determined terrorists. Moreover, there could well be a temptation towards a greater intrusion on to civil liberties by use of such alternatives against a range of people, including those with only a tangential connection with wrongdoing. By contrast, the Home Secretary has certified only 17 people.
	Lord Woolf's judgment in the M case, which I have mentioned, is a balanced appreciation of the problem, and an acceptance that the legislation gets it right. His judgment, and the recent remarks by the eminent legal scholar Professor Ronald Dworkin, fortify me in my support for the Government on this issue when we went into the Lobby on 25 February.
	I was pleased that one aspect of the problem is raised in the White Paper, One Step Ahead: A 21st Century Strategy to Defeat Organised Criminals, which the Home Secretary published earlier this week. The White Paper mentions review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which prevents the use of intercepted material in court proceedings, and I am glad that it is being reviewed.
	I shall return to the enforcement of the Terrorism Act 2000. Earlier this year, the Home Secretary told me in a written answer that of the 530 people arrested under the 2000 Act, about half were released without charge. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked a similar question, she was told that no record is kept of how many of those people are Muslims. There is disquiet in the Muslim community about the use of the 2000 Act, however justified the 2000 Act may beit is comparable to the feeling among the Irish community a quarter of a century ago. We must reassure the Muslim community that there is no persecution, and we must also assuage any Islamophobia in the general population.
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister praised Iqbal Sacranie for his remarks on those issues. This week, I have spoken several times to Khurshid Ahmed, the chair of the National Association of British Pakistanis and a member of the Commission for Racial Equality, who echoed Mr. Sacranie's views that terrorism should be utterly condemned as being contrary to Islam and that those in the Muslim community who suspect terrorism must report it. Mr. Ahmed also made the valid point that we must address the disillusion among young Muslim men that can tempt them down the terrorist path. One cause of that is the considerable underachievement of Muslim young people in education.
	We have only just had the Third Reading of the Higher Education Bill. I do not want to go over that ground again, but having failed to catch the Speaker's eye on Second Reading on 27 January, I want to say three things about the role of universities that were neglected in the debate.
	First, universities are engaged in the search for truth. That is a justification for academic freedom, since the search for truth can sometimes rub up against vested interests or the powers that be. The search for truth is often conducted at a theoretical levela level of generalitythat does not have an immediate application to everyday life. The search for truth leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world, and that can function to transmit through the generations a common culture and civilisation.
	Secondly, universities educate. Their role is in educating students to live life to the full through the acquisition of skills and through fostering imagination and creativity. All those who are able to benefit from a university education should have an equal opportunity to do so, because it involves not only personal fulfilment, but potential gain. Confucius said that it was not easy
	to find someone who had studied for three years without aiming at pay.
	Thirdly, universities fulfil a utilitarian function. Discoveries, especially in science and medicine, can have profound benefits for society. Students graduate and contribute to society through their work. Universities educate foreign students and contribute to Britain's invisibles. And so it goes on. However, although it is vital, that utilitarian function can never be the sole justification for universities.
	I spent a great deal of my adult career in universities. In the 1980s and 1990s, I saw how they suffered very much from a real reduction in funding as the staff-student ratio went up. George Walden, the former Member for Buckingham, described it as mass cultivation on the cheap. The Government have put in additional money since 1997, but I saw the Higher Education Bill as the only way forward in terms of providing further financial support for universities, and I had no compunction about supporting it.
	These recess Adjournment debates are invaluable not only in providing an opportunity for Members to put specific points, but in allowing us to raise more general issues, as I have. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members a productive and restful recess.

John Wilkinson: I have often thought that the questions which we were unable to ask and the speeches that we never had a chance to deliver were probably the best ones. Today's debate has proved it to me, because there have been excellent contributions all round. Alternatively, perhaps it is because as it is not Government business and there is no Whip, Members can use their intellect and display their true integrity.
	I want to speak in support of some of the speeches. The contribution by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) was admirable in every respect, particularly his allegation to the effect that Lord Richard is getting too big for his boots. He proposed that increasing the quangocracy, which is what the Welsh Assembly has become, would not benefit the people of Wales. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) so wisely pointed out, the imposition of STVthe single transferable votewould make that Assembly even less democratic.
	I was most interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who perhaps represents the municipal arm of old Labour. He rather reminded me of a smoother version of the Peter Simple characterthe craggy-visaged, iron-watch-chained chairman of the Bradford tramways and fine arts committee. Nevertheless, he made the extremely important point that the transformationor modernisation, as I suppose we must call itof local government has in practical terms diminished the direct accountability of local authorities to their electorate. I also support his calling into question of the role of cabinets and elected mayors.
	I support the speeches made by the countryside element among my hon. Friends. I speak for the suburbs, but my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) speak for the countrysideYorkshire and the west country, respectively. They made important points, especially about the malign effect of the common agricultural policy on our countryside. I know the uplands of the north of England well, because I lived in the north Pennines for 17 years. The reduction of support prices for sheep and cattle production would be absolutely disastrous. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who is always a lady of conscience and sensibility, was right to explain to us how awful the countryside of Dartmoor, Exmoor and the New Forest would be without ponies if they were all shipped off live for slaughter on the continent. We must address those problems.
	I want to talk about a smaller matter. It is a specific transport link that is at the other end of the problem described by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. He talked about the docklands light railway, and I want to talk about the Croxley link. I do not know whether you know much about the Croxley link, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure you that I shall try, in an exceedingly short time, to describe its merits. There is a little, disused branch line that goes through Croxley green from Watford. Everybody knows about the Metropolitan line because they read John Betjeman, and they know how lovely the places that lie along the line areespecially my constituency. If the branch line were restored to service, Metropolitan line tube trains could go along the Croxley linkthrough the centre of Watfordto Watford junction main railway station, which gives people the opportunity to take trains to Birmingham, the north-west and beyond.
	At little cost, such a measure would have an immensely beneficial effect on an important industrial area. The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that the Thames gateway was an important economic area, and for me and my constituents, such an area is the north-west corridor. We were promised Crossrail down the north-west corridor from Aylesbury to Amershamthrough my constituencyand I fought hard for a Crossrail stop in Northwood so that people could link up to Paddington, the City, Stratford and beyond. We will now be lucky to get Crossrail running even from Heathrowthrough the centre of Londonto the east of the capital, so it is almost impossible to imagine Crossrail going down the north-west corridor. If the Croxley link were built, it would at least be a substitute, at modest cost, for some of the potential that Crossrail could have offered.
	My constituents have to struggle through traffic to get to Watford general hospital, and to Watfordfor shoppingor the main line station. Such a journey is exceedingly difficult without the link. The Metropolitan line ends at Watford tube station, which is 2.5 miles from Watford's main line station. I see that the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), is taking notes; as a Hertfordshire Member, he understands the problem well. The process represents a good Conservative principle, because public services would be greatly enhanced at only modest cost. My constituents would benefit, Watford would benefit, and so would the country.

Bob Spink: Street crime in Castle Point is spiralling out of control, as it is in Essex and elsewhere in the country. There are now threats of vigilante action in my constituency. The police are often blamed, but that is quite wrong. Many of us must accept the blamethe police have only a small part of it. Those who are most to blame must be the parents of the children who are out on the streets because they do not take an interest in knowing where their children are, what they are doing, or the time of night at which they do it. They do not seem to take control action to stop them. I want parents to be given more information by the police about what is going on and to be encouraged to control their children's actions. That differs from the politically correct attitude that we have seen in recent years, especially from new Labour Members, preventing parents from taking appropriate action to control their children's behaviour.
	My local police are under great pressure. The Home Secretary and the Essex police authority have presided over a shortfall in my local police forcethe Castle Point and Rayleigh divisionof some 27.7 per cent. It is operating at almost a third under establishment for various reasons. That is partly why street crime in Castle Point has been getting out of control. That situation cannot continue. The police authority and the Home Secretary must accept responsibility and give the local chief superintendent, John Mauger, more resources and more police officers whom he can put on the beat so that the problem can be solved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and I met Chief Superintendent Mauger last week. There is a plan of action to tackle the major problems in our area. The local police will go out on the streets and additional numbers will be provided for a short time. I call on them to show no tolerance of antisocial behaviour, youth nuisance or straightforward thuggery. I call on the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute offences whenever they can, and on the courts to impose exemplary sentences that will deter louts who spoil everything for our communities. Many hon. Members share my anxieties about the growth of street nuisance.
	Last week, the National Audit Office published The Drug Treatment and Testing Order: Early Lessons. The lessons were that only 28 per cent. of drug treatment orders were completed satisfactorily. Seventy per cent. of participants continued to test positive for opiates after 12 months, and reconviction rates two years after commencement of the orders were as high as 80 per cent.far higher than the reconviction rates of criminals in general. The National Audit Office suggests a range of administrative improvements, which might help to bring the treatment regimes up to the standard of the best.
	I want to consider the new evidence that is emerging in France. As hon. Members know, I do not often speak kindly about what goes on in France, but when we can learn from the French, we should be prepared to do that. Treatment appears to be working much better in France than here and it therefore offers better value for money. We should enjoy the benefits of the French success.
	A follow-up of 300 drug-dependent patients in France, treated by general practitionersI stress that the treatment was by GPs, similar to the old regime in Britainshowed a retention rate of 88 per cent., in a complete inversion of what is happening in Britain. Seventy per cent. of patients had stopped taking heroin. Although the figures for reconviction are not strictly comparable, delinquency in France was measured at only 7 per cent. in the follow-up.
	The French widely use buprenorphine rather than methadone for maintenance because it acts as an antidote to itself in higher doses. That means that there is no point in ramping the dose and almost no black market, and that it is safe and effective to prescribe through the GP network. The results are startling. It is well worth the National Audit Office considering the French experience. France has found a far more cost-effective way in which to deal with the massive social and criminal problems that are caused by opiate addiction. We must be prepared to learn from this and spread good practice and success.
	Arthritis is a crippling and debilitating disease for which there is no cure. It is progressive and attacks young and old alike. It affects 12,000 people in Castle Point and 12,000 people in Southend, West. Indeed, it affects, on average, 15 per cent. of all our constituents and is the biggest cause of disability in Britain today. Worst of all, it is very painful for those who suffer from it.
	I want to bring two astounding facts to the attention of the House. The first is that one in four GP visits are associated with arthritis. The second, which is linked to that, is that the GP contract mentions diabetes, cancer, cardiac problems and obesity but makes no mention of arthritis. That must be an oversight, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will readdress the priority given to arthritis. I recommend to the House a publication called OA nationthe most comprehensive UK report of people with osteoarthritis, which was launched by Arthritis Care this week in the Palace of Westminster.
	I can never speak in these debates without mentioning Cyprus, as hon. Members will know. Kofi Annan's upbeat announcement has shown that he has brokered a deal, and that a referendum can probably now take place in both parts of the Cypriot community. If Mr. Papadopoulos, DISY and AKEL are going to recommend a yes vote, as may be the case, perhaps we can wish them luck and hope that that goes forward. Cypriots deserve a just settlement that will allow them to grow together as a single community, and to make up for the past by working together in the future. I am sure, however, that there should be no permanent derogation from Europe on the occupation of that island by troops under the control of another nation. That would be simply intolerable and probably have the effect of a blackball in any referendum. We all wish the settlement process well, but it will be just the start of the rebuilding of a single island, rather than the end.

Andrew Love: At The Hague in 2003, the Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, said that the preconditions for a successful settlement were that there should be
	an unequivocally-stated preparedness on the part of the leaders of both sides, fully and determinedly backed at the highest political level in both motherlands, to commit . . . to finalise the plan (without re-opening its basic principles or essential trade-offs).
	Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two conditions are that all the parties should sign up to the agreement, and that essential principles and trade-offs stand in any final agreement?

Bob Spink: Yes, indeed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was pleased to see how many concessions were made by the Greek side, but equally disappointed that Rauf Denktash, for the Turkish side, did not even attend the recent talks. That was a great disappointment.
	I shall move on to talk briefly about hospices. They play a very special part in health care provision, and I should like to praise the dedication, care and love shown by all hospice workers, organisers, volunteers and fundraisers. They do a superb job, cheerfully and happily helping people at a devastating time in their lives. I keep telling the House that Government funding of hospices needs to be reviewed, but we see no action. In the average adult hospice, 20 per cent. of funding comes from Government money; that figure is 5 per cent. for the average children's hospice. The children's hospice in my constituency, Little Haven, receives only 1.5 per cent. of its funding from public money. That is unsustainable.
	Conservative policy is that all hospices, for both adults and children, should receive 40 per cent. of their funds from public money, and I hope that the Government will take that on board and reconsider hospice funding. That 40 per cent. funding would enable hospices to remain independent. The very small amounts of lottery New Opportunities Fundmoney that is now being fed through to the hospice movement is not the answer, and that funding is not guaranteed in the future. I congratulate the campaigning News Shopper, which has been fighting for hospice funding justice for more than a year and has consistently called on the Government to address the issue. I congratulate the News Shopper, the Basildon Evening Echo and all the local campaigning groups on putting pressure on the Government, as we have done, to give hospices a fair funding deal.

Tony Baldry: If we are to have civilisation, we need international law. In recent years, the United Nations has set up war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and for the former republic of Yugoslavia. The International Criminal Court has been set up and is now investigating the possibility of war crimes in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
	I want to speak about Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone was devastated by conflict for 10 years. It was not ethnic, tribal or religious conflict, but conflict deliberately stirred up by people such as Charles Taylor, who wanted to control that country's diamond assets. In June 2000, the Government of Sierra Leone wrote to the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, requesting assistance in setting up a war crimes tribunal. In August 2000, under UN resolution 1315, the Security Council set up a war crimes tribunal. I was fortunate to be present at the opening of the special court for Sierra Leone on 10 March this year. The Government were represented by the Secretary of State for International Development and the Solicitor-General.
	The war crimes tribunal has indicted a number of people. I suspect that one reason why Colonel Gaddafi has come into line is that it was clear that he was in danger of being indicted. One of those indicted was Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia. The indictmentI have a copy of it with meruns to 20 or so pages of offences against humanity committed by Taylor. It says that he received military training in Libya in the late 1980s, and goes on to describe how he sought to obtain access to the mineral wealth, and particularly the diamond wealth, of Sierra Leone. The crimes alleged in the indictment include killings, abductions, forced labour, physical and sexual violence, use of child soldiers, and looting and burning of civilian structures.
	Those terms do not really describe the brutality of what happened. People were skinned alive. People were asked whether they wanted to be left-handed or right-handed, and depending on their answer, either their left or right arms were amputated. Soldiers would take bets when they bayoneted pregnant women on whether the foetus was male or female. Some horrific barbarism occurred at the start of the 21st century, but Taylor was indicted, and I have no doubt that that was one reason why he was brought down in Liberia.
	Taylor left Liberia and is now in Nigeria. The point of my speech is that I find it wholly unacceptable that a Commonwealth countrypossibly the leading Commonwealth country in west Africais harbouring a man who has been indicted by a UN-backed war crimes tribunal. The President of Nigeria purportedly granted political asylum to Taylor last August. At the time of Taylor's arrival in Nigeria, he was specifically excluded from the scope of refugee and asylum protection by section 20 of Nigeria's Asylum Act, which states:
	when there are serious reasons to believe that
	a person
	has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as in any international instrument to which Nigeria is a party and which has been drawn up to make provisions in respect of such crimes
	that person should not be granted refuge. Clearly, Nigeria has considerable obligations under international law.
	Those of us who are concerned about international development welcomed the New Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentNEPADbut NEPAD was a contract, under which we would give more development assistance to Africa in exchange for Africa doing a number of things, not least peer review. Surely the least that countries such as Nigeria should do is hand over war criminals so that they can stand trial.
	Colleagues in the United States Congress have been much more robust than we have been. Senator Judd Gregg, chairman of the Senate appropriations sub-committee on commerce, justice, state and the judiciary, has been quoted as saying
	Charles Taylor was one the chief instigators of the campaign of terror undertaken by the rebel group Revolutionary United Front during the conflict in Sierra Leone . . . By exiling Charles Taylor to Nigeria, it was hoped that his ability to further destabilize West African nationsincluding his own country of Liberiawould be eliminated . . . The terms of Mr. Taylor's asylum were clear: he was to completely disengage himself from the day to day affairs . . . of Liberia. However, Taylor has brokenflagrantlythe terms of this agreement . . . It is now time for Charles Taylor to answer for his crimes, and it is my hope that the State Department will work with the Nigerian Government to arrange Taylor's swift handover to the Special Court. Until Taylor is put in a place where he can do no further damage, all the efforts we have made will be lost. There is no place where justice can be served except in Freetown, Sierra Leone, the home of the Special Court.
	When I was in Freetown, everyone told me that the work of the special court would not be completed until Taylor was brought to justice.
	A woman from Sierra Leone, Aminatta Forna, author of The Devil That Danced on Water, which was shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction, says
	The court
	the special court, that is
	has one year left to fulfil its brief. If prosecutors succeed in bringing Taylor to face trial then it will have earned its place in history. If not, then millions will have been spent on the convictions of possibly no more than nine people.
	The sense of law, of justice in this post-war society has become so warped, so removed from reality that one woman kidnapped by rebel soldiers and forced to act as a nurse believed until the end of the interview that it was she who was to be charged. In fact she was seen as a potential witness.
	For the people of Sierra Leone, justice of some sort must be seen to be done. After all, what if the world had turned their backs? What if the Special Court had not existed at all?
	I urge Her Majesty's Government to bring to bear such pressure as is reasonable on Nigeriaa fellow Commonwealth country and a leading member of the Commonwealth in west Africato accept that now is the time to hand over Taylor for trial to a United Nations-backed war crimes tribunal.

David Amess: I want to raise a number of points. The first concerns law and order. There is no doubt that the British Government are letting the British people down in that regard. In the present climate, the criminal has absolutely no fearbut the law-abiding citizen certainly has.
	Only last week, my mother, who lives in a London borough and is in her 90s, answered the door in the morning to a water board attendant. Stupidlyshe now saysshe let him in. By the time he had left, she had discovered that he had stolen every brass penny she had. The police were magnificent; they took fingerprints. It seems that she was about the third in line.
	That says it all. Criminals no longer wait until it is dark; they act morning, noon and night. Southend is no different from anywhere else in that respect. I had a useful exchange in Westminster Hall last week with the Minister responsible for policing, who kindly offered to consider a number of the points that I had raised. The Government will claim that things are getting better, but that is not how the public see it. They want a more visible police force.
	There are certainly plenty of speed cameras. In answer to an oral question, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), challenged me to find examples of constituents who were just over the speed limit. I have now found an example, and I await the Minister's reaction with interest.
	I am delighted that the local newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser, is launching a campaign this week called More feet on the beat. It is to be led by the editor, Graeme Allen, and one of the reporters, Luke Walsh. The Home Secretary will get coupons telling him that the general public feel that he should provide sufficient funding for 10 extra police to patrol the streets in the Southend police division. I was recently on a Health Committee visit to Odense, where we saw at first hand the wonderful impact on law enforcement and the reassurance to the general public that is provided by police officers getting on their bikes. I have a letter from the chief constable of Essex, who reassured me that he would look at the issue.
	I salute the owner of a large retail chain called Choice, who is issuing carrier bags that say, We support Crimestoppers. When I told the Minister responsible for policing about it, she was encouraged; it is another matter for her to look at carefully. At the moment, Leigh police station is closed in the evenings and Eastwood station is open occasionally, but Westcliffe station is now closed. My constituency is No. 1 in the country for people aged between 100 and 110. They need reassurance through the greater visibility of our policemen and women.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend will be aware that the level of policing is a big issue across south Essex and was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). Does he agree that we need not only more regular police officers in Essex, but more special constables, who play a vital role in reinforcing the police, particularly at peak periods on Friday and Saturday nights?

David Amess: I agree and I am advised that 90 special constables are in the process of being recruited.
	I have mentioned on many occasions my constituent Maajid Nawaz, who was held in prison for two years. Last week, he went to court with two other detainees and was found guilty of belonging to the Islamic liberation movement that apparently wants to overthrow the Egyptian Government. They were sentenced to five years in prison. I went to see them in prison and there is no doubt that the charges are trumped up. I believe the family completely.
	The families are upset about the way the matter has been dealt with. I am advised by the brother of Maajid Nawaz that following the announcement of the verdict, the Government said that they respected the decision and that Britain could not intervene in the course of justice or the courts of another country.
	I am pleading with the Minister because we have only four weeks to act. He must speak to the Prime Minister to get him to intervene. Incidentally, all three detainees got the same sentence of five years, but they were not found guilty of the same crime. In Egypt, an appeal depends on the written explanation of the verdict, which has not been delivered by the judge. The Prime Minister must intervene immediately because, within four weeks, President Mubarak will be asked to ratify the sentence or approve the writing of the explanation. After that, we will all be wasting our time.
	I hope that the Prime Minister will intervene because the families are distraught. He is always telling us that he is happy to see Members of Parliament, but he has not been happy to see me and the other Members involved. I would have thought that, under the circumstances, he could at the very least agree to see the Members of Parliament involvedalone if he insisted, or with the families. The Prime Minister intervened on behalf of two nurses who were convicted of murdering another nurse in Saudi Arabia, even though the evidence was overwhelmingly against them. It seems that he is able to intervene on some occasions. I ask the Minister to do what he can to persuade the Prime Minister to intervene quickly in that case.
	My constituent, Simon Matthison, has been held in prison in France since 1 December. His mother, Mrs. Calderwood, has been to see me at one of my surgeries because she is concerned about her son's health while he is in prison in France. He suffers from Addison's disease and many other health problems, for all of which he takes medication. His consultant physician has contacted me and advised me that those are serious conditions and that doses of medication for them need careful monitoring.
	Although Simon is apparently being seen by a general practitioner in France, he is not getting the specialist treatment that he needs. Will the Minister send a message to the British embassy in France? I am not asking him to judge whether Simon is being held in prison rightly. He was accused of trying to smuggle illegal drugs into the UK in a sealed trailer that he had driven from Spain. He claims that he had no idea that the drugs were in the trailer, but I am not asking the Minister to intervene on that point. I ask only that he talk to the Foreign Office to get our embassy to ensure that Simon Matthison receives the correct treatment for his health problems.
	The South East Essex Advocacy for Older People was founded in 1994 with originally just one member of staff. It has now expanded to include six paid members of staff and 14 volunteers. It does an absolutely wonderful job supporting people aged over 60 who suffer from Alzheimer's or other problems, and making representations on their behalf. That advocacy organisation would not survive were it not for its success with its community fund application. During the past year, it has received more than 600 inquiries, resulting in 400 case loads. I salute it; it does a magnificent job. Will the Minister ensure that it has more certainty over its funding?
	A constituent of mine, Peter Little, is involved in a dispute with Lloyds TSB. He and his wife were mis-sold a critical illness insurance policy in October 1999, which stated that it was regulated by the Personal Investment Authority. When Mr. Little tried to claim, owing to his wife's failing healththey have small childrenhe was unable to do so. When he read the policy's small print, he found to his horror that he was not insured, and on investigating further, he found that the policy was not regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Mr. and Mrs. Little felt that they were banging their heads against a brick wall when they contacted the FSA and the ombudsman. Will the Minister ask the appropriate Department to examine that case? Mr. Little has proved through his bank statements that his policy should have covered his present circumstances. I would have expected Lloyds TSB to have behaved better than it appears to have done on that matter. Will the Minister find out why that bank is selling insurance policies that are not regulated by the FSA?
	I am happy to keep spending my 5 each week on the national lottery, and I am not totally embittered that I have not won too much money, but it is an absolute disgrace that my Southend, West constituency continues to be third from the bottom in the list of the 659 constituencies for receiving lottery funds. Why is it right that Southend receives 1 million while Greenwich and Woolwich receives 689,209,982? In other words, Southend, West receives 0.002 per cent. of that received by Greenwich and Woolwich. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to have a word with the appropriate authorities to ensure that Southend, West gets a far better share of national lottery funding.
	Finally, I hope that the House, given its jolly atmosphere as we approach the Easter recess, will join me in congratulating Southend Unitedthe Shrimperson reaching the final of the LDV Vans trophy. I was delighted to travel by car, with my family, to the venue for last Sunday's final. It was a 430-mile round trip. Thousands of people from Southend went. We lost the match 20. The first goal was definitely offside, and I shall not go into too much detail about the second, but I congratulate the teamincluding the manager, Steve Tilson, and the chairman, Ron Martinon an absolutely magnificent job and on representing our town so well.

Michael Jabez Foster: At the end of term, one has a dilemma: whether to rush back to the delights of one's constituency, or to remain here to the end in the hope of making a telling contribution in the interest of one's constituents. If my colleagues in government are moved to respond to my plea today, the self-denial involved in not rushing back will have been worth while.
	My concern is similar to that of other Members: transport. Although my constituency is only 60 miles from London and 40 miles from the channel tunnel, Hastings is the 28th poorest town in Britain, and the reason is transport. As a result of the Government's commitment to regeneration, we are doing much better than we were, but Hastings remains the 28th poorest town in Britain. We have received 50 million in regeneration money, which equates to 1,000 per household. Compared with the 18.50 shortfall in council tax contribution per household, that constitutes a pretty good profit. Under the leadership of councillor Jeremy Birch, the brilliant Hastings borough council is making a difference.
	Transport remains an encumbrance. The rail links are awful and despite the nice new trains, it takes two hours to get to London. Two hours is a long time to travel 60 miles. The line linking us to Europe consists of a single track, so if a breakdown occurs, Europe is closed.
	I want to concentrate, though, on the A21. It is known locally as the snail trail, but it is worse than that, because snails do not travel that slowly. A21 users cannot travel fast, and when they try to do so lots of accidents occur. It is a very dangerous roadperhaps one of the most dangerous in Britain. Indeed, it is credited with changing British history. It is said that King Harold was held up on the A21 on his way to the battle of Hastings, and that as a result William was well ensconced before the battle commenced. It is certainly true that using the A21 to travel back to one's constituency is an exhausting experience.
	We have been promised improvements and I am pleased to say that one suchthe Lamberhurst bypassis under way. But my first plea is that we need more. I ask the Government to announce very soon the other planned improvements to the A21 south of Lamberhurst.
	My final pointit is the real reason that I asked to speak todayrelates to a particular decision of the Highways Agency and the way in which such decisions are taken, of which I learned only this morning. The agency has decided to de-dual the only stretch of dual carriageway road between my constituency and Pembury. Some 1.7 km of dual carriagewaythe only stretch of that road on which one can overtakewill be turned into a single carriageway. That is a crazy decision. It was taken because many accidents occur there, but I wish that the agency would consult local Members before taking such decisions. Indeed, perhaps it should have consulted Ministers on this decision, given that it was a wholly administrative one.
	Of course, if de-dualling takes place the accidents will simply be displaced. If the road consists of 15 miles of single carriageway and people have to wait for an opportunity to overtake that does not come, they will take even more dangerous decisions. It is a bit like crime. Although I am happy that it is falling overall, some of it gets displaced, and the same applies to accidents.
	My final plea is for the Minister to pass on my concerns to his colleagues in the Department for Transport. First, let us soon hear departmental announcements about improvements to the A21. Secondly, please do not de-dual the only piece of dual carriageway on the road. While we are waiting for the main announcements, let us find other methods of ensuring better safety on that very dangerous road.

Rudi Vis: I have raised the issue of Cyprus in many previous Adjournment debates, and it is particularly appropriate to do so again today, because it was decided only yesterday that there will be a referendum on 24 April in both the Greek Cypriot republic and in the occupied part of Cyprus on the Annan plan to unite the island. If the result were yes in both referendums, Cyprus would enter the European Union in its entirety on 1 May 2004. If either side were to vote no, only the republic of Cyprus would join the EU on 1 May.
	I have wanted a free, united and democratic Cyprus for as long as I can remember. Now that we are on the threshold of a decision, I should be pleased. Yet I am not. More importantly, tens of thousands of Greek and Turkish Cypriots are not pleased either. There is particular anger in the Greek Cypriot community in Cyprus and in this countryand for some very good reasons. I should like to mention just a few of those reasons to give a flavour of the failings of the Annan proposals.
	Annan does away with the many UN resolutions against Turkey concerning Cyprus. Annan suggests that many of the cases against Turkey before the European Court of Human Rights should be withdrawn. Annan will allow a continuing Turkish military presence in Cyprus. Annan proposes an almost two-state Cyprus, as was always wanted by the putative leader of the occupied territory, Mr. Denktash. Annan allows no real freedom of movement. Annan allows decades before property and land will be sorted out for the 200,000 Greek Cypriots who fled in 1974 as a result of the Turkish occupation.
	Annan does not guarantee full functionality so that the new state can function smoothly within the EU. Annan does not resolve the situation of the enclaved and does not allow voting rights for the hundreds of thousands of Greek Cypriots affected by the occupation in 1974 who now live abroad, but he does allow the voting rights of the tens of thousands of Anatolians who were imported into Cyprus from Turkey.
	I have not exhausted the reasons for the genuine anger of the Greek Cypriots, and I have not noted the anger of Turkish Cypriots who feel politically emasculated by the Turkish presence. Our Government, in their rush to sort out one problem and commence on another problemto start negotiating with Turkey for EU membershipback up all that confusion and anger. I sincerely hope that the Foreign Office will bear those difficulties in mind. I also hope that the Greek Cypriots will vote no in the referendum on 24 April.

Bob Spink: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's list and I noticed that he failed to mention that Annan also makes no proposals to provide incentives for settlers to return to mainland Turkey. That is another negative point about the Annan proposals.

Rudi Vis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That could easily be done: plans are afoot, but Annan makes no contribution.
	I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a pleasant recess.

Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate. As is always the case with such debates, it showed the House in its best light, as right hon. and hon. Members on both sides raised subjects of genuine concern to them and their constituents. We have even heard about the Shrimpers, who I gather were robbed by a referee's decisionthat, at least, is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
	The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the subject of Cyprus, as did other Members. The whole House sends the people of Cyprus our wish that they find a way forward that unites them and enables them to join the European Union as one country.

Bob Spink: They will anyway.

Oliver Heald: Indeed. But the widely shared concerns that have been expressed are about the exact mechanics of the process.
	There was much discussion of the situation in Wales and of the Richard commission. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) is no longer in the Chamber, as I wanted to give him some extremely bad news from a book called Ayes to the Left, written in 1995 by the present Leader of the House, and in which he describes the future for Wales. He wrote:
	A Welsh Parliament would begin by having its own legislative powers confined . . . But in timeand as Britain moved towards a federal structuregreater legislative and revenue raising powers could be obtained.
	That was a straw in the wind in 1995.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) came up with a principle that found strong support on the Conservative Benchesindeed, we might even describe it in future as the Lucas principle. It was that there should be a referendum on matters that involve constitutional changes. That is a principle that finds ready acceptance among my hon. Friends and, indeed, among Members on both sides of the Houseeven the Liberal Democrats appear to be nodding.

Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the case of the Conservative party, that principle would be entirely novel?

Oliver Heald: I forget how many referendums the Government have heldabout 37 so far.

David Heath: How many have the Conservatives held?

Oliver Heald: We have had the odd one or two, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, although I think in fact it was only one[Interruption.] Yes, yes. We had one.

Ian Lucas: What about?

Oliver Heald: The Ulster border poll. Not everyone can remember that. The hon. Gentleman is clearly a strong Unionist. His attack on the National Assembly for Wales may have been slightly veiled, but he clearly was not keen that the Assembly should succeed in its ambition to have the right to make primary legislation. He was not at all keen on what the Assembly had done to the health service in Wales, and he seemed to feel that the lack of top-up fees in Wales would cause considerable difficulties.
	The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, went all the way. He said that the bonfire of the quangos had not occurred and made it extremely clear that he would resist giving the Assembly any further powers. It would be interesting to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House of Commonsespecially given his boss's positionwhat his perspective is on those issues. Will he follow what the present Leader of the House was saying in 1995, so that the process is more and more in favour of a devolved Parliament; or will he tell us that enough is enough and that, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), the Richard commission has got far too big for its boots?
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made some interesting remarksas usual. I recall especially his comments on mobile phone mastsa subject of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I am certainly concerned; indeed, last night I presented a petition from Royston with 1,633 signatures. The petition was against a mast that NTL had to remove because it did not comply with planning permission, but the company plans to put it up again right next to a primary school, so of course parents are saying that they may have to take their children away from the school. EDF, the owner of the site, has offered to forgo the rent if NTL leaves the site, so its contractual obligations would cease. A local councillor, Tony Hunter, spent hours looking for an alternative site, yet when he found one, NTL would not even negotiate with the land agents. The subject is dear to my heart, and I shall mention it againthat is a promise.
	We had some very interesting contributions about trains. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned his service in Hastings. We heard a strong plea for the Croxley link, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). We also heard a strong plea that the docklands light railway should join up with Hornchurch.
	The debate had a rural flavour, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). I should not forget that we want Major Perkins to get his tax refund. I hope that the Minister has written that one down.
	On law and order, we had contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and a cameo intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). The point that they were making is that, under this Government, criminals have become quite brazen and are robbing people, even in daylight. There just are not enough police on the beat in south Essex. That is why the local paper is running the strong campaign that we heard about. However, the more general point is that policing seems to have become a very intellectual exercise these days, with intelligence-led policing and a reactive approach to policing. A lot of people believe that a strong, visible police presence on the streets is required if we are to have the firm control that we need in our society.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) referred to terrorism and made some important points about the law. We also heard a strong plea about the war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I join in his plea to the Government about Nigeria. It is wrong that someone who is clearly a war criminal, or at least indicted as such, should be given safe haven in a Commonwealth country.
	On defence, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) again raised the issue of equipment for our armed forces. It seems shocking that there are three examples in a relative small area of the country where the kit that the armed forces need simply was not available. Although he did not mention this, one of the most startling parts of the report on the issue was the reference to tanks not having the correct filters to deal with certain weapons of mass destruction. The Government's reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, so to send our boys in to fight in tanks that did not have the kit to deal with such weapons seems very irresponsible. Time should be made available to debate that issue and for the Government to make a statement about what will happen, as well as to debate the investigations issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) raised castles and conveniences, Mr. Varah's early departure from the probation service and Abbeyfield homes. I should be grateful if the Minister touched on those issues in replying to the debate.
	The debate has been wide ranging, touching on subjects of importance in many areas and covering geography as far apart as Sierra Leone, Guatanamo bay and the docklands light railway. It is traditional on these occasions to wish all hon. Members on both sides of the House a very merry and happy Easter recess, and I am happy to do so, especially to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also thank all the people who do so much in the House of Commons to help Membersall the staff who work here, the Clerks and those who keep us safe.

Phil Woolas: I start by echoing the final remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and thanking, on behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members, the staff who work in this place in many different capacities. It is particularly worth mentioning, given the events that have taken place in the Palace and outside during the Session, the debt of gratitude that we all owe to the security and police forces. They put their lives on the line every day and we struggle to remember to wear our passes. We should put that in perspective.
	I echo also the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the nature of these debates. They are extremely wide ranging and it is difficult comprehensively to respond to them. I apologise in advance if I do not do so. However, I undertake to bring to the attention of Ministers the points that have been made where Members have requested that I do so. I know that some of the issues that have been raised have been by letter as well as by parliamentary questions.
	The debate has been amazingly wide ranging. I shall start with the important defeat of the Shrimpers. I think that it was 20. There was a contest over the first goal. For the sake of balance, I say on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) that I think that it was not offside. Congratulations should be due to all those involved.
	Mention was made of football teams in other Members' constituencies, or at least where many supporters of those teams livenamely, Liverpool and Manchester United. It is always a good idea to get in the names of football teams. It is always a good idea also to get in the name of the local newspaper. I congratulate those Members who have done that. I would not be so foolish as to criticise anyone for doing so.
	I shall now try to respond to the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) referred to the Richard commission, which reported today. I agree in every aspect with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the report. It is a report to the National Assembly for Wales and, in the first instance, it is for the Assembly to consider it. The Government will be responding appropriately to the report in future.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has gone on record as saying that he supports the alternative vote system and not the single transferable vote system. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) and others raised points about proportional representation, and I can agree with them in that context.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about some important points that he has taken up with the Ministry of Defence. I know from previous debates and from seeing correspondence that the MOD is aware of his concerns. They will note the points that he has raised during the debate.
	The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) apologised to the House for being unable to remain in her place. She was kind enough to inform me that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) would take her place, as it were. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her courtesy. She raised a number of matters, including some policy issues, and made some requests. She asked me to encourage a reply from the Department for Education and Skills on the next steps on the Farnham castle issue. I shall certainly draw that to the attention of the Department. The right hon. Lady referred to the Surrey Institute of Art and Design students, who had lobbied her. She said that she thought that they would be lobbying her on behalf of student debt. Ironically, I remember 20 years ago lobbying the right hon. Lady when she was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Minister of State, Chris Patten, on the issue of student debt. Perhaps things have come full circle. However, students now are immeasurably better off due to the generosity of Government support. I could go into the figures.
	The right hon. Lady said that she was lobbied on behalf of the British Toilet Association. She was pleased, but surprised, to discover that there was such an association. Indeed, there is an all-party group on public toilets, and a valuable service it does. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) is the chairpersonat least, she was when I went to the meetings. Toilets are an important part of public services, and the House will be relieved to hear that I was sorry to learn that the students fear that 50 per cent. of the toilets will be lost as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act. It that is true, it is an example of the law of unintended consequences. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, who is doing a fantastic job improving the rights of disabled people, will want to note those points. If that is happening in the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, it could well be happening elsewhere.
	The right hon. Lady asked me to raise the matter of Abbeyfield homes with the relevant Minister at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I am happy to do that. She also raised concerns about the primary care trust. To be fair to her, she acknowledged that her constituents have a growing confidence in the NHSI believe I quote accuratelyand I am glad to hear of her support. She drew attention to difficulties that I assume are local difficulties to do with decisions being taken locally. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Department of Health.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made one of those interesting speeches that bring a little philosophy, reflection and wisdom to Adjournment debates. I sign up to the idea that what goes around comes around. It is amazing how similar these Adjournment debates are over the many years that they have taken place, if one takes the trouble to read them. I should respond to my hon. Friend's worries about the decline in the powers of local authorities by saying that the examples he gave show that the tide is turning. It is not coming up the beach as quickly as he would like, but the Greater London council has been replaced by the Greater London authority, thanks to the Government's programme. It does not have as many powers as he would like, but I hope he acknowledges that the tide is turning.
	The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised four issues on behalf of his constituents. I shall begin with the most importantthe case of Major Richard Perkins, his constituent. I am advised that the Ministry of Defence is trying to resolve the tax status, following the decision by the Veterans Agency to award him his war disablement pension. I am also advised that the case is not straightforward. The MOD is preparing a submission to the Inland Revenue, which is responsible for the final decision. The MOD acknowledges that it has taken some time to resolve the matter and apologises for the inconvenience that that has caused. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pass that on to his constituent, whom all of us would want to help. An 86-year-old ex-soldier deserves our support.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of livestock farmers in north Yorkshire and the CAP reform. I do not know whether he was present for the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on CAP reform, when she described the process that we would be going through. The definition of severely disadvantaged areas is obviously important. The issue arises in my constituency as well.

John Greenway: Since I made my speech and was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I have discovered that an announcement by the Minister was expected today, but no announcement has been made.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to our attention. His remarks will be noted.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of flooding. He asked me to pass on the special case of Pickering. Anyone who knows his part of the world will be familiar with the problems. He asked for an extension of the scheme or another device to allow the scheme to be put in place. Again, his remarks will be noted.

Oliver Heald: Would the Minister take this as a representation, which I did not make at business questions? It is necessary for the Secretary of State to make a statement to the House about the changes that she is making to her response to reform of the common agricultural policy. Could we have that statement in the first week back?

Phil Woolas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Secretary of State's statement on 12 February was open and transparent. She rightly committed herself to consultations, and that was accepted by both sides of the House, as was the fact that the reform of the subsidies programmes and the definition of the areas require balanced decisions. I can only pass on the hon. Gentleman's request, although I can see his point. I commend the Secretary of State's policy on this important issue. Many have called for the reform of the common agricultural policy for many years. We are delivering on that, and that is important for our farming industry and countryside.
	The hon. Member for Ryedale also referred to insurance and terrorism. I believe that I am right in saying that he is a former insurance broker, and obviously the lack of insurance in respect of terrorist activities must be tackled. I believe that the Treasury will be looking at that. He asked for a shot in the arm on that point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) raised a number of local points, as well as a general point about the Richard commission. If I was in a position to sign early-day motions, I would certainly sign early-day motion 930, tabled by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I think that his 40th birthday is due during the Easter recess, so I wish him a happy birthday from all of us.
	My hon. Friend rightly criticised his Conservative-controlled council's cavalier and irresponsible attitude to his primary schools and showed how it was not taking into account the needs of the children in his constituency. He raised, as he has done before, the issue of mobile phone masts, and he raised the issue of the docklands light railway, asking for it to be extended to Rainham. That was a successful private finance initiative that came in on time and on budget, and I will be happy to pass on his request to the Secretary of State for Transport. My hon. Friend made a general point about the Richard commission and proportional representation, to which I have referred, and I think that he knows the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on that matter.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) took us to the beautiful villages of Devon, where she wants to encourage us to go for our holidays, and I hope that hon. Members will be able to do so. She talked about the vital villages programme. I know that she is aware that the reorganisation of the budget has led to a curtailment of future budgets for that programme and she may like to take that matter up in more detail. I understand the point that she makes. She referred to Gittisham, which I think appeared in the national press recently, and if what happened there occurred in any of our constituencies we would take a similar attitude. She referred to petrol pumps and called for a little common sense, which we hope can be achieved. She talked about horse safety, as she often does, and the need to protect our horses. She is aware that the schemes that have been put in place are intended to do that, but I know that the equine lobby has concerns about their implementation.
	The hon. Lady made probably the longest request ever, which was originally intended for the Prime Minister, at what I could perhaps describe as a virtual Prime Minister's Question Time. I would not dare to presume to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister, except to say that I am always amused that the question regarding the EU constitution referendum is never defined. If one were to say that the constitution was a fundamental change from the treaties of Europe, I could see the case for a referendum. But if one reads the proposed constitution, and I have, it does not fundamentally change the treaties, so it is a bit of a bogus argument.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made some interesting points. I am sorry that I am not able to respond to all hon. Members. I was going to give a positive response on the Croxley rail link. We are waiting for the results of the comprehensive spending review before re-examining that. I answered some of the points made by hon. Members from Essex who have had a huge and record increase in the number of police officers, and everyone knows that crime is falling. I am sorry that I cannot go into further details about the success of the economy under the Government, which I would be more than happy to do, but I end by wishing all hon. Members and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very happy Easter.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT (PUDSEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Charlotte Atkins.]

Paul Truswell: I want to start by discussing the problems facing the most oppressed minority among public transport users: bus passengers. Since deregulation in 1986, they have faced a consistent and irreversible decline in services, and Pudsey is no exception. The voices of bus passengers are rarely heard, and I want to redress that shortcoming with a few short quotes from my constituents.
	The first comes from Laura Ladd of Yeadon, who wrote a cogently argued letter about the shortcomings of First Bus, saying:
	Fares have increased significantly over the past years with no improvement in service. New bus times and numbers were launched with insufficient information and few new timetables made available at stops. I should congratulate you
	First Bus
	that buses are rarely latethey just don't arrive at all.
	The next quote is from Mr. Stephen Tong, who bemoans the loss of the 66 route in Pudsey and says:
	Whenever I have travelled on this service I have noticed that the vast majority of passengers are elderly, and many of them infirm. The withdrawal of this service would be a body blow to the many small communities which it serves.
	Mrs. D. Burke says, among many other comments that
	When I came here to live in 1988 I drove a car and was a much younger person. Now I am in my eighties, my eyesight is not good enough to drive and I depend solely on public transport, which is an absolute shambles.
	Another constituent, Alan Gladwell, comments on the same theme that
	In Leeds, the concentration seems to be on the more popular (and more profitable) routes in and out of the city centre. It seems to be a common occurrence for First or other monopolistic bus service providers to withdraw bus services for 'commercial reasons'.
	Mrs. Margaret Young of Yeadon wrote to me about the loss of a link between her part of Yeadon and Otley, which is the location of Wharfedale General hospital, noting:
	It would seem that whoever it is that decides on these 'silly' changes never travels by bus, has never understood the geography of the area of Lower Yeadon and perhaps doesn't even know there is a Hospital at Otley (the wonderful Wharfedale Hospital) that caters for Yeadon.
	Dennis Gibbons bemoans the changes, saying:
	As a daily user of the bus services in Leeds we see the decline in the provision of local services at first hand . . . They continue to alter and change services with inadequate notice and with little thought to the users of those services.
	Finally, in a cogently argued three-page critique of the operation of First Bus, my constituent Anne Simms says:
	I enjoy my job and once upon a time I used to enjoy travelling to and from work. Sadly though now I do not enjoy the travelling at all because of the fact that buses are late or missing and I have such problems getting home.
	Since the deregulation of the bus industry outside London in 1986, bus use has declined by nearly 30 per cent., and fares have risen by more than 25 per cent. in real terms. Outside London, the Government are in real danger of missing their 10-year plan target for increasing bus use. A recent parliamentary answer indicated that although bus patronage grew by 3.8 per cent. nationally in the past two years for which figures are available, the growth in London was 13.5 per cent.; outside London it was minus 1.8 per cent.
	Two thirds of public transport journeys are made by bus. Those on the lowest 20 per cent. of incomes make more than nine out of 10 of their public transport journeys by bus, and about 60 per cent. of bus journeys are made by people from households who do not own a car. People on low incomes outside London are particularly badly affected, with fares rising by 2.1 per cent. a year in real terms over the past 10 years.
	Marginal social routes continue to be vulnerable to cutbacks, as the letters that I have quoted from constituents attest. Arriva's most recent half-year report spells it out. It states:
	Outside London our approach, to what is currently a mature market, is to focus on a twin track strategy of targeting investment to deliver growth and eliminating low margin and loss-making routes.
	In London, the average pre-tax profit margins of such companies are under 6 per cent.; in passenger transport executivePTEareas such as mine in west Yorkshire, the average is 14 per cent.
	In areas such as Pudsey, 5 to 10 per cent. of services do not operate, and even when they do, punctuality is poor. According to PTE figures that I have just received, punctuality in the Pudsey area fell below the so-called acceptable level of 95 per cent. in every single month since June 2003, and it has fallen as low as 80 per cent. on some occasions. PTEs are involved in planning services effectively only at the margin, since 85 per cent. of services are commercial. PTEs continue to try to get the best out of the existing system. For example, locally we have the Yorkshire bus initiative, guided bus projects and a major bus priority measure on the A65 that will serve a small part of my constituency, but such measures are severely limited.
	It is clear that overall the current structure is failing passengers. It is time for a fresh approach to the way in which we spend the 1.3 billion public subsidy that goes into bus services. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of early-day motion 581 on bus franchising. My view, and that of those MPs who support it, is that if it is good enough for London, it is good enough for my constituentsand, I hasten to add, my hon. Friend's constituents.
	Legislation to allow PTEs and local authorities to introduce London-style bus franchising through quality contracts is long overdue. Although such contracts are possible, the hurdles are so high that, according to a recent parliamentary answer, none has been introduced. The system is being reviewed and there is some indication that the period between which an application is made and comes into operation is being considered, but, on the good authority of the PTE in my area, that will not change the system in practice.
	We need to make it easier for local authorities and PTEs to introduce quality contracts where the private sector is failing to provide an integrated, socially inclusive service delivered in a way that achieves passenger growth in areas outside London. Bus services could be planned to connect withrather than to compete against train, tram and light rail services, and there could be tickets that increased transfer between buses and other means of travel.
	Like bus passengers, rail users in my constituency have been ill served by privatisation. My constituency is served by stations on three routesHorsforth, New Pudsey and Guiseley. I accept that we have seen some major improvements. All three stations have undergone major refurbishment. The efficiency of Leeds City station has been increased by a 250 million investment that has reduced congestion and delays. An RPPrail passenger partnershipgrant enabled the provision of excellent new 333 class four-car rolling stock on the Airedale and Wharfedale line. I should declare an interest, because I am an avid user of those trains.
	Between 1994 and 2000, use of the west Yorkshire rail network increased by 44 per cent. from 11.5 million to 16.6 million passengers. The privatised structure simply has not coped with that increase in demand and use. The recent inquiry by the Select Committee on Transport into overcrowding on public transport concluded that overcrowding is worse in west Yorkshire than in the south-east. Overcrowding in London and south-east in the morning peak is 5 per cent., while in west Yorkshire it is 9 per cent. in the morning peak and 5.3 per cent. in the evening peak. For example, four of the six trains arriving in Leeds via New Pudsey between 7.30 am and 9 am have standing passengers. In the evening peak, five of the six services leaving Leeds between 4.30 pm and 6 pm have standing passengers. We must tackle that sardine syndrome in areas such as west Yorkshire.
	Additional units are required to cater for future growth, especially to serve the two priority new stations sites identified on the Wharfedale lineApperley Bridge and Kirkstall. Metro has bid for six additional units, three of which would operate on that line, but several outstanding issues need to be resolved before the bid can succeed. It is essential for a way forward to be found if future growth and new stations are to be accommodated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will do everything that they can to ensure that the current impasse is resolved favourably.
	The capacity issues are also the key to other priority plans, such as the Horsforth Woodside station that is planned for my constituency. There is a longer list of 30 possible stations that includes Calverley Rodley. That is also in my constituency and would provide an excellent site for a park and ride scheme.
	Unfortunately, the high cost of rolling stock means that it difficult to provide the extra trains required. For example, it costs 144,000 to lease a two-car basic Pacer train from a rolling stock company. By comparison, the cost to Metro when it bought a two-car Pacer was 350,000. Those figures show that there is a huge rate of return, so it is not surprising that both HSBC and the Angel Trains leasing company make 1 million a week in after-tax profits.
	West Yorkshire Metro has a blueprint for increasing patronage by more than 50 per cent. over the next 10 years. That involves lengthening existing trains by procuring additional rolling stock and lengthening platforms. It will not require a great deal of infrastructure investment. Indeed, that growth, impressive though it would be, could be achieved with a relatively modest investment of between 5 million and 6 million per annum over 10 years.
	While I am on the subject of rail, it would be remiss of me not to make passing reference to the Leeds supertram proposals, which obviously have wide-ranging implications for the city of Leeds, West Yorkshire and my constituents because the scheme would provide a public transport alternative to the private car. As part of the wider long-term development of supertram, a route between Leeds and Bradfordvia my Pudsey constituencyis emerging as one of the better performing possible routes that could be added to the core system, if that went ahead. I appreciate that supertram proposals are being reassessed in the light of substantial cost increases, but its partners are preparing optionsincluding reduced ones within the figures agreed in 2001that are still favourable compared with alternative forms of transport. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State to meet Leeds Members, supertram partners and representatives of the business community to discuss the revised submissions because they are incredibly important for Leeds and West Yorkshire.
	Let me turn to the impact of air transport on my constituency, with particular reference to Leeds Bradford airport. The Secretary of State's White Paper statement recognised the need for a balance between growth in air travel and its environmental impact on not only climate change, but those living near airports, such as my constituents. He confirmed that we needed to reduce and minimise the impact of airports on local communities and the natural environment.
	The White Paper section on Leeds Bradford airport also refers to the need to minimise noise impact and improve public transport and access. It refers to an airport master plan. The executive summary on page 11 makes reference to airport operators developing appropriate access plans. Will the Government be issuing clear guidance on what the airport master plans or access plans might actually contain?
	It is clear from the local debate on the White Paper and the consultation that preceded it that the airport consultative committee is not considered as an adequate mechanism for providing continuing dialogue between local residents and the airport. However, that in no way decries the energetic and laudable efforts that the airport's director and management team have made to engage in the local debate generated by the consultation process leading up to the White Paper. They also spend significant time trying to deal with the day-to-day concerns of local residents, but that is invariably ad hoc and reactive.
	We need an airport planning process that is based on proper formal public consultation. That should be underpinned by an independent environmental impact assessment, which should include consideration of the impact, prevention and minimisation of air and noise pollution, climate change, and other associated issues, such as operating hours. At the moment, the only time that public consultation takes place is when a planning application is submitted for a specific development, which is usually something like a car park or runway extension, but such a piecemeal approach is totally inadequate. It also prompts a question about the local authority determining planning applications for an airport in which it has a clear interest.
	If anyone were looking for an airport site today, the location of Leeds Bradford airport would be unlikely to feature in the process. Its limitations must properly be reflected in future plans. Even at current passenger levels, there is a need for improvement to road safety and access. Transport links are poor and the roads are widely regarded as inadequate and unsafe. The implications of growth cannot be addressed without consideration of the impact on local communities and the environment.
	I appreciate that people in Leeds and West Yorkshire want to fly from their airport at the cheapest price to the greatest number of destinations. Although my constituents who live near the airport realise that there is a price to pay for the location, they rightly do not want their quality of life destroyed over time by its unrestricted and excessive growth. A fair and sustainable balance must be struck.
	The condition of roads is the final issue that I wish to tackle in the whistle-stop tour of transport issues in Pudsey. Like other constituencies in Leeds, mine suffers from a substantial backlog in highway maintenance. That occurred in the years of the Conservative Government when inadequate capital allocations caused difficult compromises. Leeds city council chose to prioritise schools, early years provision and social services, especially services for older people, at the expense of highways.
	Although I am pleased that the council has earmarked an extra 15 million for highways over the next three years, its ability to make even more progress depends on the highways formula spending share. Besides maintenance, there are other important aspects such as road safety measures, crossings and speed cameras.
	The council's grant was affected when the A1-M1 link was opened. The link obviously led to a reduction in traffic flows on some major routes, but they were never designed to take the traffic that they experienced before the link was opened. Consequently, they needed major repair. The traffic has gone and the money has gone with it, but the maintenance is still required.
	The removal of the traffic flow threshold had an impact on Leeds. Previously, average traffic flow had to be above a specified figure before councils received any extra money. Removing the threshold spread the money across a greater number of authorities, to the obvious detriment of areas such as Leeds.
	I am aware of the clock, and, given the constraints of time and the need to give my hon. Friend the Minister some time to respond, I shall bring the tour to an end. I anticipate his response with bated breath and I know that he will write to me about any of the issues that he is unable to cover in the remaining 13 minutes.

Kim Howells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing the debate and raising the issue of transport in and around Pudsey. Indeed, if all hon. Members were as vigilant as he on transport, the various responsible agencies and authorities would have to sit up and take a bit more notice than they sometimes do. It is right and proper for him to quote his constituents, who depend on and use the buses and trains.
	I ask my hon. Friend to understand that some great improvements have taken place. We have great hopes for the outcome of the rail review, because we are currently spending huge amounts of money on the railways and we want to get much more value for taxpayers' precious money. Our strategy is to tackle congestion and pollution by improving all sorts of transport. My hon. Friend used the word integrated. It is mightily overused and its application to transport is often vague. We need much more integration and we should think about it much more strategically than we often do, at all levels of government.
	We are interested in some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised. We want to establish a strategy for investment to create prosperity and a better environment, as well as to do all the things for his constituents that my hon. Friend mentioned earlier.
	The step change in funding that we have made over the past four years emphasises the Government's commitment to delivering a sustained improvement to the transport infrastructure and thus a real improvement to people's daily lives. The total capital funding available for authorities' local transport plans in 200405 is 1.9 billion. That is a huge amount of money, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, with that amount of money available, bus services should not be deteriorating but improvingas indeed they are in some parts of the country.
	In Pudsey, a share of that sum of almost 2 billion will be delivered through the West Yorkshire local transport plan. LTPs have provided more certainty of funding for local authorities, with almost a doubling of funding in investment to improve road safety, to increase the capacity and use of public transport, and to reduce the backlog of road and bridge maintenance. My hon. Friend was right to mention that issue; it is a shame how far road maintenance programmes were cut back during those long years of Tory Government. Neither the Tories nor many others understood the importance of maintaining our roads in good condition, and we are now having to pay much more as a result.
	The burden of my hon. Friend's concerns related to buses. A key area for an authority's LTP is to increase the use of public transport and to improve the service to users. The sustained development of bus services is key to this. When I was growing up in the 1950s, every developing country wanted a steelworks and a state airline. Nowadays, every city and large town in this kingdom seems to want a tram system or light rail system. They are, however, enormously expensive. We have met MPs from Leeds, and my hon. Friend is right to say that there is a visionary project for a tram system there, but its cost has doubled over a very short period. The last costing that I saw was 1 billion, which is a huge amount of taxpayers' money to spend on such a project.
	I shall be interested to see what we can do to improve the image of buses and bus travel, and the quality of bus transport. It is very much the Cinderella service, although buses carry just as many people as the railways do. They are very flexible, and if they are run properly, they can and do provide a real quality service around the country. One of the problems is that we assume that there is a golden bullet that will cut through all the difficulties involved in making bus transport more popular. I do not think that such a golden bullet exists. It is down to good management, a committed work force, paying people decent rates of pay and making them feel as though they are part of a valuable service. That is the kind of ethos that the best of the railway companies have developed over the years. There is no reason why bus services should not be like that.

Paul Truswell: Is not part of the problem the fact that where there are improvements to bus services, they tend to be on the profitable commercial routes? Under the pre-1986 system, that profit would have been used to cross-subsidise the unprofitable services that were necessarily very important to those without cars who depend on buses for their transport. That cross-subsidy no longer occurs, because any profit simply goes to pay shareholders.

Kim Howells: That is partly true, but not entirely so. I have seen for myself bus services in rural areas of England, for example, that are developing interesting dial-up systems and flexible routes that can respond to the needs of people living in remote areas who do not have cars and who depend on buses. The notion of integration, which he mentioned earlier, can often be key. It is about trying to understand exactly what people need in those areas and how the bus service can best respond to those needs. My hon. Friend is right that in many ways flexibility has decreased as a consequence of what has happened over the past 10 or 20 years. I was in Carnforth in Lancashire recently, for example, where I saw an excellent scheme operating from Carnforth railway station, with proper integration, and a real sense of wanting to respond to the special needs of people who may live in remote areas, or who may live in inner city areas, who perhaps cannot afford cars or do not want cars and want to use public transport. Of course, there is an issue of affordability, but there is also an issue of good management, to which we have not paid enough attention.
	May I add that that is also a big issue on the railways? I was lucky enough to go to Japan recently and see the Japanese railways, which have huge capacity. I have been going round boasting that last year we carried 1 billion people on the railways in Britain, which is the highest total since 1961. The Japanese railways carried 21.7 billion people. They do it not through space age technology or rocket science but through very good management and responding to what passengers need. They charge a premium fare for it, by the way, but people are prepared to pay those fares if they know that they will get a very good service as a consequence. That is a target at which we must aim in this country, whether in Pudsey or anywhere else.
	My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about the question of future funding. Public transport subsidy in West Yorkshire was 66 million last year. If we divide that total by all the trips taken in West Yorkshire by passengers, it works out at about 3 subsidy per passenger journey. That is a big subsidy. It is not quite as big as the overall subsidy for passengers in Britain, by the way, which is a bit nearer 4 per passenger journey. It is a big slug of public investment. We must examine that carefully in relation to schemes that look very attractive, and my hon. Friend is right to have identified some of those in his area. We need to consider how we can improve on the way in which we use new vehicles on railways, and how to improve signalling systems so that we use more intensively the railways that are already there. Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and some of the rail companies are looking closely at that and doing sterling work to try to improve performance. I hope that he will welcome that.
	My hon. Friend mentioned briefly the ROSCOsrolling stock companiesand the profits that they have been making. It is a remarkable story. There has been investment of 4 billion in 4,000 new carriages for our railways over the last seven years. That is the biggest order that has ever been placed, and it is hard to see how that could have been public investment alonepublic-private investment was needed to get that sea change. As for the average age of our fleet, it is now one of the youngest anywhere in Europe, with more and more new trains coming on to the system, and the system will improve as a consequence.
	My hon. Friend asked about the aviation White Paper master plan. Yes, I can give him an absolute assurance that the Department will issue guidance for airports on the production of master plans. On the question of surface access, he noted the quality of transport links to Leeds Bradford airport. Once again, I refer him to the aviation White Paper, which on page 143 states:
	responsibility for bringing forward proposals and securing funding lies with airport operators, working closely with DfT, SRA, HA and regional and local bodies.
	It also notes
	The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.